Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

MESSAGES FROM THE QUEEN

DEATH DUTIES AND INCOME TAX (ANSWER TO ADDRESSES)

The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Addresses, as follows:

I have received your Addresses praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Estate Duty) (Sweden) Order, 1960; the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Italy) Order, 1960; and the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Sweden) Order, 1960, be made in the form of the respective drafts laid before Parliament.

I will comply with your request.

INCOME TAX

The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:

I have received your Address praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Air Transport Profits) (Iran) Order, 1960, he made in the form of the draft laid before your House.

I will comply with your request.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF AVIATION

Space Research

Mr. Strauss: asked the Minister of Aviation whether he can now state the outcome of his discussions with other Governments over the launching of a point space research programme;

Mr. Donnelly: asked the Minister of Aviation when he anticipates that he will be in a position to make a further statement regarding the progress he is making towards a British research programme into outer space.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): My right hon. Friend is in Paris for discussions with the French Government about a satellite launcher based on Blue Streak, and at present I am unable to add to the answer he gave to the hon. Members for Bosworth (Mr. Wyatt) and Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) on 7th November.
I am glad to inform the House, however, on behalf of my noble Friend the Minister for Science that recent negotiations in Geneva led to the signature, by ten countries including the United Kingdom, of an agreement setting up a Preparatory Commission to study the possibility of establishing a European organisation for co-operation in space research. The Geneva Conference expressed the hope that the


Preparatory Commission would consider the closest possible co-operation between any organisation which might later be formed for space research in Europe, and any collaborative organisation between European States for the development of a launcher.

Mr. Strauss: Can the Minister tell us why there is this further delay before a decision is reached in regard to a launcher? Is he aware that consideration of this problem by the Government has been going on for eighteen months and that in November this year the Minister said:
I certainly think we ought to make up our minds before the end of the year what the answer should be". [OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th December, 1960; Vol 501, c. 649.]
He appears to be in a stage of further discussion.
Further, is it a fact that the European Space Research Agency has rejected the proposal for using Blue Streak as a launcher?

Mr. Rippon: There is no further delay. It is the same delay. This is very much a long-term project. We are looking very far, into the second half of the century, and it is best not to be impatient. As I have indicated, the Geneva Conference has asked for the closest possible co-operation between any organisation which may later be set up and any European countries which might collaborate in developing a launcher.

Mr. Peart: The hon. Gentleman has spoken of plans for a European organisation. What about the Commonwealth? Why not also a Commonwealth space agency?

Mr. Rippon: As has been made clear from the outset, we shall keep in close touch with the Commonwealth. We shall keep in particularly close touch with the Australians, who have been our partners throughout. They certainly have a direct interest.

Skybolt

Mr. Lipton: asked the Minister of Aviation when he now expects delivery of Skybolt.

Mr. Rippon: The weapon is still in the development stage, but delivery to the R.A.F. is planned for the mid-sixties.

Mr. Lipton: When will the Government admit that Skybolt is a dead duck and should be scrapped forthwith? Even if the Minister has not, has the Parliamentary Secretary asked to see a copy of the Report which the President-elect of the United States, Mr. Kennedy, had from the committee of experts in which very grave doubts were expressed on whether it was worth while to pursue this development at all?

Mr. Rippon: I intend to make no such admission. The project is going according to plan.

Aircraft Industry (Exports)

Mr. Cordle: asked the Minister of Aviation whether he is aware of the concern amongst the aircraft industry in the United Kingdom at the recent loss of an important Indian contract for helicopter and heavy transport aircraft which was awarded to Russia: and, in view of the difficult situation in which the aircraft industry is placed, what assistance he is giving to it in the development and promotion of its export drive.

Mr. Rippon: I am aware of concern over this matter.
It is my right hon. Friend's constant endeavour to assist the industry's export drive by all the means at his disposal.

Mr. Cordle: Does my hon. Friend realise that we have lost this contract and a certain amount of good will through inefficiency and failure to seize opportunity? Will he take steps, in consultation with the industry, to see that the failure is not repeated?

Mr. Rippon: All these negotiations have not yet been concluded, but I would not expect the purchase from Soviet Russia of a number of aircraft to set a pattern. I hope that we shall continue to be the main supplier of aircraft to India.

Mr. Chetwynd: Is it not a fact that we lost this contract because we could not deliver on the date requested by the Indian Government and also because of cost?

Mr. Rippon: I do not accept that. I imagine that the decision of the Indian Government was dictated by a number


of factors, including, for example, the suitability of the aircraft for the particular purposes they had in mind.

Southampton Airport, Eastleigh

Mr. J. Howard: asked the Minister of Aviation what progress has been made in the negotiations with Southampton Corporation regarding its re-purchase of Southampton Airport, Eastleigh; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Rippon: The Southampton Corporation told us on 24th November that it wished to re-purchase the land it formerly owned at Eastleigh, and negotiations with the corporation are about to start.

Mr. Howard: Will my hon. Friend expedite the transfer of the airfield to any new prospective owner? In view of the importance of maintaining confidence in Southampton Airport, why did his right hon. Friend not land at Southampton on 2nd December as scheduled? What was the source of his information to the effect that the airfield was unfit, because Southampton Airport has been fit for flying on every day this year?

Mr. Speaker: The last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary does not appear to arise out of the Answer. The first part was in order.

Mr. Rippon: We shall certainly press ahead with the negotiations as quickly as possible. As for the suitability of Eastleigh, there is no doubt that it is used for scheduled services throughout the year, although it is a grass airfield. There were particular circumstances on this occasion which led the Minister's pilot to decide to land at Hum.

Dr. King: As a private individual is acquiring this airport, which for financial reasons the Ministry and the local authorities are not prepared to go on with, will the Parliamentary Secretary do everything he can to see that this public-spirited citizen gets all the support of his Department?

Mr. Rippon: I have no knowledge of any negotiations which may subsequently take place between Southampton Corporation and anyone else interested in using the airfield.

Hurn Airport

Mr. J. Howard: asked the Minister of Aviation how much has been expended to date on the expansion programme at Hurn Airport; and how much more needs to be spent.

Mr. Rippon: Some £42,000 has been spent already, mainly on a new fire station. Approximately £560,000 needs to be spent, mostly on a new terminal building and apron.

Mr. Howard: Will my hon. Friend consider the money yet to be spent in relation to the intention of Southampton Corporation to arrange for the airport to be continued after the Ministry has relinquished it?

Mr. Rippon: I do not think that there should be any conflict of interest in regard to the development of the two airfields.

Britannic Aircraft

Mr. John Hall: asked the Minister of Aviation when the Britannic Freighter Aircraft contract was signed; how many aircraft have been ordered; when they are likely to be in service; and what further orders are to be placed.

Mr. McMaster: asked the Minister of Aviation when he expects Her Majesty's Government to agree the final details of the Britannic order; and whether he is prepared to increase the number of aircraft to be made available to Her Majesty's armed services by this order.

Mr. Prentice: asked the Minister of Aviation whether the contract negotiations for the Short Britannic freighter aeroplane have yet been completed; and when he expects to announce the placing of the final order.

Mr. Rippon: I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) on 25th October.

Mr. Hall: Is my hon. Friend aware that negotiations on the Britannic contract have been going on since at least February, 1959? Is it not time, for the sake of the Army, which badly needs transport aircraft, as well as of the company, that a decision was arrived at?

Mr. Rippon: The negotiations for a fixed-price contract have necessarily been complicated, but my right hon. Friend hopes to make an announcement before the Christmas Recess. As for the work itself, an interim contract was placed and the firm is pressing ahead with the essential work.

Mr. McMaster: Will my hon. Friend consider the desirability of expediting the order, so that the firm can keep to a timetable of delivery fixed almost two years ago? Will he further consider whether some of these planes should be provided to the Army so that it will be truly mobile by the mid-1960s?

Mr. Rippon: We are certainly aware of the necessity of keeping to the timetable for the production of the aircraft. Further orders for the Services are matters for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence.

Mr. Prentice: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that in his Answer on 25th October he said that negotiations were then in their final stage? Can he give some more information about this? When will there be a real sense of urgency? Is he further aware that unemployment in Northern Ireland rose by more than 5,000 between mid-October and mid-November? Does he not think that any Government which could do anything to expedite the provision of new work in the area should show a sense of urgency?

Mr. Rippon: What I have tried to explain to the House is that there is no direct connection between the work being done on the plane and the settlement of the details of a very complicated contract.

Mr. Strauss: Can we have an assurance that the holding up of the signing of the contract has had no effect on the work being done by the firm and is in no way delaying any further work which is in contemplation?

Mr. Rippon: It is clear that the firm has been able to proceed with the essential work under the interim contract, which was signed earlier this year.

Passengers (Form)

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Minister of Aviation what protests he has received

against the proposal to introduce a new form on 1st January, 1961 requiring detailed information from arriving and departing passengers by air.

Mr. Rippon: The Airline Operators' Committee has expressed its dislike of the proposal. In addition, two letters of protest have been received from individuals.

Mr. Chetwynd: Have not the Air Corporations expressed themselves in much more forcible language than that about the introduction of this exceedingly stupid form, which may have a deterrent effect on people travelling to this country in British planes? What on earth is its use? Can the hon. Gentleman give one useful reason why we should have this form at this stage?

Mr. Rippon: It has been recognised that the airline operators, including the Corporations, have objected in principle. As for the necessity of the scheme, that is not a matter for my Department. As to its value, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade on 15th November.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Has the Minister protested to the Board of Trade on behalf of the aviation interests? Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that, if he tries to get the scheme through the House, he will meet a great deal of opposition, even from one or two Members on this side?

Mr. Rippon: As my right hon. Friend told my hon. Friend last week, he has passed on these observations to the Board of Trade.

Mr. Chetwynd: Will legislation be necessary before the form can be introduced?

Mr. Rippon: As my right hon. Friend told the House last week, the scheme is only under consideration. As the Order in Council has not been introduced yet, objectors are still tilting at windmills.

London Airport (Security)

Mr. A. Royle: asked the Minister of Aviation if he is satisfied with the present security arrangements at London Airport; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Hunter: asked the Minister of Aviation how many security police are employed by his Department at London Airport; and how many work in each shift.

Mr. Skeffington: asked the Minister of Aviation what is the number of security police in each shift at London Airport; and what is the total number employed there by his Department.

Mr. Rippon: My right hon. Friend is satisfied with the security arrangements for which he is responsible, but there is, as elsewhere, a recruitment problem. The present strength of the London Airport police is 141. The number available for a shift is usually about 30.

Mr. Hunter: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that there are sufficient security police at London Airport, bearing in mind not only the robbery which took place a week or so ago, but also the recent disturbance? Will he endeavour to strengthen the security police at London Airport, in view of the large area they cover?

Mr. Rippon: There is a shortage due to recruitment difficulties. The authorised complement is 161. We are certainly anxious to secure additional recruits. I should not think that that in itself creates an insuperable difficulty as regards security.

Mr. Manuel: The Parliamentary Secretary said that there were about 30 security police on duty per shift. What is the number of hours worked per shift? If it is an eight-hour shift, 30 seems to be a small number per shift, because there would be only three eight-hour shifts per 24 hours. Is too much office work and administration being done and not enough security work?

Mr. Rippon: It is an eight-hour shift. The difference between the available strength and the number of men on each shift is accounted for by the fact that the police officers concerned have to have three days' rest in each fortnight. There also has to be provision for leave and and an allowance for sickness, and so on.

London Airport (Strike)

Mr. Mathew: asked the Minister of Aviation what were the reasons for the strike by porters and members of the

apron services at London Airport on Monday, 5th December; and what action has been taken as a result.

Mr. Rippon: The unofficial strike at London Airport on 5th December arose from oral allegations by a baggage loader about the way he had been questioned by a detective constable followed by a demand by certain employees for the immediate suspension of the police officer. As soon as the complainant had made a written statement, an inquiry by a senior officer into the allegations was started in accordance with normal police procedure.

Mr. Mathew: Does my hon. Friend not agree that this strike caused great dislocation of B.E.A. services and consequent inconvenience to many travellers from Europe? Whatever may be the rights and wrongs of the dispute—however they may be revealed at the inquiry—and whatever may be the rights of the employees, will not my hon. Friend agree that the parallel responsibilities of the employees to the public were not being observed?

Mr. Rippon: Happily, the airport continued to function with the co-operation of the airlines and few, if any, aircraft were delayed. The strike was unofficial, and I agree with my hon. Friend that it is usually in everyone's interest to use the established machinery to raise and settle disputes.

Trans-Atlantic Fares

Mr. Emery: asked the Minister of Aviation what action he is taking to obtain lower trans-Atlantic air fares; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Rippon: This winter trans-Atlantic fares on schedule services have been reduced to the lowest point ever by the introduction of excursion fares which are 29 per cent. below standard fares. British operators have been the first to press for fare reductions, and I am satisfied that they are doing all that is possible to maintain this trend.

Mr. Emery: Does my hon. Friend realise that, even with these reductions, in comparison with a comparable route, with the same aircraft, over a comparable distance from Boston to Los Angeles, the fares are 2¾ times less? Does not the Parliamentary Secretary


realise that because of the effectiveness clause of the I.A.T.A. constitution, the Government are ultimately responsible for this pricing system, and will he do something about it?

Mr. Rippon: Direct comparisons between these international routes and United States domestic routes are difficult, since international services are nesessarily more difficult to operate and because of special allowances for the crews abroad, proportionately higher overhead costs, and so forth.

Jet Aircraft (Smoke and Smell)

Mr. Hunter: asked the Minister of Aviation what progress has been made in eliminating smell and smoke from jet aircraft when taking off from London Airport.

Mr. Rippon: The emission of smoke on take-off is chiefly confined to the Boeing 707 Type 120, which uses water injection. Few aircraft of this type now operate at London Airport. Smell is a more difficult problem. It is being closely studied by airport authorities throughout the world, but no practical solution has yet been found.

Mr. Hunter: Will the Parliamentary Secretary bear in mind that smell and smoke constitute a real annoyance to residents around the airport, especially housewives? Will he continue, by research, to try to eliminate this nuisance altogether?

Mr. Rippon: We will continue to do our best. I think we are dealing with smoke by the progressive elimination of the particular aircraft concerned. As far as smell is concerned, what we need is a sort of "Air Wick", but it has been difficult to devise this.

Supersonic Aircraft

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Minister of Aviation what was the estimated cost of a supersonic aircraft for military and civil use, respectively, in 1957; and what are the estimated costs at the present time.

Mr. Rippon: In 1957 the estimated cost of developing a projected supersonic bomber was about £70 million. No estimate was given at that time of

the cost of a supersonic airliner and it is still too early to make a reliable estimate.

Mr. Shinwell: In view of the suggestion made in various quarters, in this House and elsewhere, that this project should be proceeded with, can the Parliamentary Secretary say where the Government will get the money from? Is there any truth in the reports that there is in contemplation now a joint arrangement with the United States on this project?

Mr. Rippon: One of the objects of the design study which has been set in hand is to consider the feasibility of this project and to get some idea of its cost. It is certainly possible that there may be international co-operation on a project of this kind.

Mr. Chetwynd: Can the hon. Gentleman reply to the second part of my right hon. Friend's Question and say what are the estimated costs today?

Mr. Rippon: It would be premature to estimate the full cost of development until we have had the advantage of the design study. Work on that is expected to take about a year. The cost, as has been announced, is about £350,000.

Mr. Rankin: asked the Minister of Aviation when he will complete his plans for the development of a supersonic airliner.

Mr. Rippon: I have nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. Member on 28th November, 1960.

Mr. Rankin: Does the hon. Gentleman recollect that a few moments ago he said that a design study was under way? Will that study not depend on the speed at which we want this aircraft to fly? Is it not the case that the metal of the airframe will depend on the speed we have in mind, and can he say what conclusions his right hon. Friend has reached on these two matters?

Mr. Rippon: The purpose of the design study is to determine just that sort of question.

Mr. Strauss: May I ask a further question on this important matter? We have been told that co-operation has been sought with the United States in the


development of this aircraft. According to the Press today, three major aviation agencies in the United States are contemplating agreeing on the development of a Mach 3 supersonic airliner. In view of the fact that the idea here appears to be a Mach 2, can the hon. Gentleman tell us how co-operation between this country and United States authorities on the development of this aircraft is feasible, or what the Government have in mind about it?

Mr. Rippon: I have seen Press reports, but I do not think any of them need divert us from considering our own project. Of course, international co-operation depends on agreement on a particular type of aircraft to be produced. So far as the Mach 2·2 is concerned—that is, a speed of about 1,500 miles an hour—we can still use the light alloy, and many people believe that is a more feasible proposition and that it can be developed more quickly. For the Mach 3—that is, a 2,000 miles per hour plane—we need something in the nature of all-steel construction. We will be considering these matters very carefully in the design study, and they also will be considered during the consultations which will take place with the United States.

Prestwick Airport (Overseas Aviation Limited)

Mr. Manuel: asked the Minister of Aviation when he expects to announce a decision on the application by Overseas Aviation Limited for internal route rights from Prestwick Airport.

Mr. Rippon: My right hon. Friend is considering the advice of the Air Transport Advisory Council upon this application and hopes to announce his decision shortly.

Mr. Manuel: Could the Parliamentary Secretary indicate whether it is to be announced this week; if not, when will it be announced? The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the interest and concern of the Ayr County Council, with a population of 320,000 people and without feeder services. Over and above that, there is the whole potential of south-west Scotland, which is quite untapped so far as internal air services are concerned.

Mr. Rippon: I hope a decision will be announced within the next fortnight. I am aware of the support that exists for the increased internal services from Prestwick.

Aircraft Landing, Northolt

Mr. Skeffington: asked the Minister of Aviation in what circumstances a jet aircraft intended for London Airport landed at Northolt on 25th October.

Mr. Rippon: The Boeing 707 was making a radar-sequenced approach to London Airport in conditions of good visibility for a landing. Eleven miles from the airport the pilot reported to the Radar Director that he had the runway in sight and was cleared to make a visual approach. This is the usual practice. The pilot apparently made a mistake in identifying his aerodrome and landed at Northolt.

Mr. Skeffington: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that everyone is glad that no harm resulted from this incident, but there is considerable perturbation among not only residents but the local authorities that such an accident should take place? Is it a fact that on this occasion the pilot mistook one of the numerous gasholders, and, if that is so, is it not time that these arrangements were revised so that a tragic event does not occur at some time?

Mr. Rippon: I think it will be found that this was quite an exceptional case, but as an experiment it has been decided that in future radar will give guidance to aircraft to a point nearer the airport.

Aircraft Production (Northern Ireland)

Mr. Jeger: asked the Minister of Aviation what action is being taken to expand aircraft production in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Rippon: I understand that on the basis of contracts already placed or to be placed, Short Brothers and Harland Ltd. hope to maintain approximately their present level of employment for some time. Any expansion must depend on the future demand for the aircraft which they produce.

Mr. Jeger: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that there is great anxiety in Northern Ireland where unemployment is growing and has reached almost 8 per cent.? Is he doing anything through his Department to increase the production of aircraft in what are exceptionally good circumstances in that part of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Rippon: The Government are well aware of the general problem of employment in Northern Ireland. There are, indeed, some questions down to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary later in the week. As to the expansion of aircraft production, we have in hand the order for the Britannic.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF HEALTH

Chiropody Services

Mr. Watts: asked the Minister of Health whether, when giving his approval to schemes submitted to him under Section 28 of the National Health Service Act, 1946, by local authorities for chiropody services in their areas, he will make it a condition of his approval that existing chiropodists' private surgeries shall not be excluded from such schemes, in so far as these relate to service to persons over 65 years of age and to expectant mothers, both of which services are free.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Edith Pitt): No, Sir; but most of the schemes approved provide for using the services of chiropodists in their own surgeries. There is power to charge in all cases.

Mr. Watts: Does my hon. Friend agree that the present system is inconvenient to beneficiaries who are not allowed free choice of practitioner and unjust to chiropodists who have to pay rates to the very authorities which are competing with them?

Miss Pitt: No, Sir, because there is still free choice for the patient and since, in the case of clinics provided by the local authorities, the local authorities meet the cost of the services, I think it right that they should have discretion in how they provide the services.

Lord Balniel: But is my hon. Friend aware that some local authorities base

their chiropody services on their clinics to the exclusion of private practice and voluntary services, which is a cause of considerable concern to the Institute of Chiropodists? Will she consider issuing model schemes for the use of local authorities?

Miss Pitt: As I explained, it is for the local authorities to decide how they will operate the services. There is nothing to prevent their using chiropodists in their own clinics as distinct from using the chiropodists' own premises.

Dr. Summerskill: Does the hon. Lady agree that it is in the interests not only of this category of patients but in the interests of the Exchequer that this work should be conducted in the way that her Department thinks best?

Miss Pitt: I think it is appropriate that local authorities should decide how to look after the cases we have indicated as being in the priority classes, because they know the priorities—expectant mothers and old people.

Aircraft (Disinfestation)

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: asked the Minister of Health what steps he has taken to ensure that all aircraft are properly disinfected and cleared of flies and other insects before or on arrival at United Kingdom airports.

Miss Pitt: All civil aircraft coming from countries outside Western European Union and the Republic of Ireland must declare on landing when and where they were last disinfected and cleared of insects. The health authority then decides what further action to require on grounds of health.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Can the hon. Lady give a categorical assurance that the World Health Organisation recommendations about aircraft disinfestation are being rigidly applied at all British airports? Further, is she satisfied with the procedure laid down by the W.H.O., and are we in fact taking advantage of the most up-to-date and effective insecticides which are available for this work?

Miss Pitt: Past experience has shown that the risk of introducing infectious diseases into this country by aircraft is very small. If the House will forgive


this rather long answer, I will explain the position. Disinfecting or disinsecting on arrival in the United Kingdom is not normally necessary since in some circumstances, for example, in the case of yellow fever infected areas, the international sanitary regulations require, among other sanitary measures, the disinfection or disinsecting of the aircraft before departure, and in any case no vector-borne quarantinable disease exists in this country and public health measures would prevent its spread were it introduced.

Medicine Dosages (Teaspoons)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Health what consideration has been given by his Department to the dangers which arise from the wide disparity in the size of teaspoons which are used for taking medicines, especially by children; and what advice and guidance is given to the public in this respect.

Miss Pitt: My right hon. Friend is not aware of any need for him to give advice and guidance to the public in this respect.

Mr. Dodds: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a wide disparity in the size of teaspoons and the way they are used? While the National Health Service provides so much medicine, is it not important that there should be some standardisation in this respect? Is it not a fact that certain people can have four, five or six times the quantity taken by others? May this not be harmful in some cases and, in others, where antibiotics are used, if too little is taken, is not the result of little value? Should not something be done about it now?

Miss Pitt: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware that there is a wide variety in teaspoons, but there is a wide margin of safety between the therapeutic dose and the dangerous dose, even for children. It is, I think, for parents to take the necessary steps not to exceed this.

Home Helps

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Health, in view of the increasing practice of local authorities demanding payment for the provision of home helps to those in receipt of National Assistance, what progress has been made in discussions with associations representing

local health authorities to stop this practice; and what action he has taken to assist such people meanwhile.

Miss Pitt: The Association of Municipal Corporations has now advised its members that it considers this practice unjustifiable; discussions with the County Councils Association are continuing. Meanwhile I understand that the National Assistance Board's officers use their discretionary powers where necessary to ensure that the payment of such a charge does not leave a recipient of assistance with less income than the National Assistance standard.

Mr. Dodds: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that I congratulate her on that type of reply and I hope that some satisfaction will be reached before very long with the associations?

Social Workers

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Minister of Health if he accepts the recommendation contained in paragraph 117 of the Younghusband Report concerning financial assistance from central government funds for the training of social workers; and when he intends to introduce the necessary legislation.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Enoch Powell): I consider that the present arrangements for financial assistance to trainees should be given a fair trial before further steps are contemplated.

Mr. Robinson: Is not the Minister aware that the Younghusband Working Party, which gave a good deal of thought to this mater, came to the exactly opposite conclusion and thought that the present arrangements would not be suitable for the expansion of training? Will he not give this matter further thought before reaching a final decision?

Mr. Powell: Yes. This is not a final decision. I am sure that at present the number of trainees is not limited by the absence of any Exchequer grant, and so it seems reasonable to see how the present arrangements work.

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Health what steps he is taking to increase the number of psychiatric social workers in the National Health Service.

Miss Pitt: Facilities for training have been provided at two further universities this year, but availability of experienced supervision remains the limiting


factor and this can only improve gradually.

Mr. Swingler: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that that is a most unsatisfactory reply? Is she not further aware of the desperately serious shortage in so many areas, which calls for the most urgent and drastic steps in schools and universities to recruit more people, and for the greatest effort on the part of those who are qualified to give the training?

Miss Pitt: There is no shortage of applicants. As I indicated in my Answer, part of the training is actual case work—practical work—and that needs an already qualified psychiatric social worker in order to undertake the training of recruits to the service, but steps have been taken to improve the position.

Radiographers

Mrs. Castle: asked the Minister of Health what steps he is taking to alleviate the shortage of radiographers in the National Health Service.

Miss Pitt: Steps taken include the extension of training facilities and the payment of training grants. The number of radiographers in training increased by one-third in the last two years.

Mrs. Castle: Would not the hon. Lady agree that there is a very real shortage of radiographers in the National Health Service? Is it not due to low rates of pay and poor financial prospects in the National Health Service, which means that many men radiographers, in particular, are being attracted into industry? Although this is a matter for the Whitley Council, will not the Ministry state publicly that something ought to be done about these low salaries?

Miss Pitt: There is a shortage, again in part due to the competing claims for the services of girls, and this is mainly a women's profession. The Staff Side of the Whitley Council has just put in another application for an increase—the last was in February, 1959—and it is to be considered by the Whitley Council.

Dr. Summerskill: What is the starting salary of a radiographer?

Miss Pitt: I have not got that information, but if the right hon. Lady will put down a Question I will look into it.

Surgeries

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Minister of Health if he will consider extending the development unit to include a section to advise family doctors on design and building costs of surgeries and on organisation and methods in general practice.

Mr. Powell: I have had no request on these lines from the profession, but my Department's help and advice is available. The Group Practice Loans Fund Committee advise on the design of group practice premises.

Mr. Pavitt: Cannot the Minister take the initiative in this matter without waiting for the profession to make a request? Is he aware that if he could increase the amount of service given by family doctors it would save a considerable amount of expenditure caused by unnecessary hospitalisation, and that it would be possible to do just that along the lines suggested in the Question?

Mr. Powell: The profession is not unaware of the problem, but I would rather that the initiative in this matter came from it.

Venereal Disease

Dr. D. Johnson: asked the Minister of Health what steps he is taking to counteract the increased incidence of venereal disease amongst young people.

Mr. Powell: Local health authorities, hospitals and general practitioners were reminded last year of their responsibility to co-operate in efforts to reduce the incidence of venereal disease generally, but I am not satisfied that we yet under stand sufficiently the significance or causes of the increase amongst young people, and I am considering how these can best be investigated.

Dr. Johnson: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his reply, may I ask him if he does not agree that this is an extremely serious problem owing to the new drug-resistant strains of infection that are about, and, while moral objurgations in these days are unfortunately rather discounted, does he not consider it within his scope at least to emphasise the virtues of personal cleanliness, which have lapsed in so many instances at the same time as other virtues?

Mr. Powell: I am not sure that moral objurgations come within the scope of my Department, but I am sure that all those concerned understand the importance of emphasising the right rules upon all those with whom they come in contact.

Dr. Summerskill: What form does this propaganda take? The right hon. Gentleman will recollect that the public health propaganda on the subject of venereal disease was obvious to the ordinary citizen. Now, I could not say, and the ordinary person could not say, where these people can see the notices about clinics. Can he tell the House what is being done and why this has been relaxed prematurely?

Mr. Powell: I am not aware that there has been any relaxation of this publicity. Indeed, only this year my Department has informed local health authorities, which are the primary authorities, of further propaganda material which has been made available for their use.

Drugs

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Minister of Health what changes he intends to make in the voluntary price regulation scheme for drugs following his review of the scheme.

Mr. Powell: This matter is still under consideration.

Mr. Robinson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in the light of the very sharp criticisms of the scheme by the Public Accounts Committee and the excessive profits of some drug manufacturers, we look forward to substantial changes in the scheme? Is he able to tell the House when he is likely to make an announcement on this matter?

Mr. Powell: Not yet, Sir.

Rheumatism and Arthritis

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Health what recent reports he has received in respect of the increase in rheumatism, arthritis, and similar complaints; and to what extent new treatments of this class of disease are ensuring definite alleviation or cure.

Mr. Powell: I have received no evidence of increase in these diseases, though the rising average age of the

population might justify a presumption. I am informed that no outstanding new treatment has become available during the last few years.

Mr. Sorensen: Is not the Minister aware that in some parts of the country at least rheumatism and similar diseases seem to be on the increase and that certain methods have been applied which seem to be effective in some areas but not in others? Could not the right hon. Gentleman make available to all doctors and hospitals information about these methods of treatment which seem to be effective, so that they shall know of them even if they do not apply them?

Mr. Powell: I am not clear to which areas or methods the hon. Gentleman is referring, but if he will communicate with me I will look into the matter.

Doctors' Assistants

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Minister of Health how often he requires local medical committees to undertake a periodical review of assistantships in general practice; what are the dates on which such reviews have been undertaken by the Middlesex local medical committee; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Powell: Normally every two years; a committee of the Middlesex Executive Council, which includes members of the Local Medical Committee, reviewed consents in October, 1957, June, 1959, and October, 1960.

Mr. Pavitt: While welcoming the diligence of the Middlesex Committee, may I ask the Minister whether he is aware that the abuse of the system of assistant ships is the nearest thing to slave labour? Will he tighten up the general machinery for review?

Mr. Powell: As I have said, I consider that executive councils ought to carry out a review at least every two years.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOSPITALS

High Wycombe Hospital

Mr. John Hall: asked the Minister of Health why there has been a lengthy delay in approving the High Wycombe War Memorial Hospital Scheme.

Mr. Powell: The regional hospital board was authorised on 10th November to prepare working drawings and bills of quantities for the first phase. I am considering measures to accelerate the approval of hospital schemes.

Mr. Hall: I am very glad to hear that my right hon. Friend is considering methods of accelerating these hospital schemes. Does he realise that people in High Wycombe have been waiting an interminable time for this hospital extension and present conditions in the hospital throw an intolerable strain on the loyalty of the staff? I hope that the project will be speeded up very rapidly indeed.

Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Gateshead

Mr. Randall: asked the Minister of Health what progress has been made by the ad hoc committee established by the Newcastle Regional Hospital Board to complete the originally planned 250 beds and other facilities required for the full development of the Queen Elizabeth Hospital at Gateshead.

Mr. Powell: None, Sir; the Board is reviewing hospital requirements and provision on a wider basis.

Mr. Randall: The ad hoc committee was set up some time ago. I agree that there has been some alteration in respect of beds, but does the Minister realise that facilities for out-patients need examination and that there is quite a serious situation there in that respect? I should be very grateful if he would look at the matter.

Mr. Powell: Yes, but I think that such a matter can properly be examined only in a context wider than that of a single hospital.

Mr. Randall: asked the Minister of Health what hospital accommodation and facilities were available to the citizens of Gateshead immediately prior to the appointed day of the National Health Service; what were the population figures on that day; and if he will list the hospital accommodation and facilities now available, together with the figures of population served by the Gateshead and District Hospital Management Committee.

Mr. Powell: As the Answer includes a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Randall: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman has examined the figures. Will he agree that the population has gone up by about 100 per cent. since the previous Administration and that the number of beds under the new Administration has increased by less than 50 per cent., and out-patient consultations have risen from 30,000 to 153,000? Do not these figures indicate a need for an extensive increase in the facilities at the disposal of the Gateshead and District Hospital Management Committee?

Mr. Powell: When the hon. Gentleman looks at my reply, he will see that the percentages are substantially different from those he mentioned. The most striking figure is the increase in the number of doctors and nurses, which has enabled much more effective use to be made of a given number of beds.

Dame Irene Ward: In view of the urgent needs of the North-East Coast in hospital services, may we look forward to a visit from my right hon. Friend at a fairly early date?

Mr. Powell: Yes, Sir; I should like to accede to my hon. Friend's request. I look forward to being in the Newcastle region next Easter and seeing for myself all branches of the National Health Service there.

Following are the figures:


GATESHEAD AND DISTRICT HOSPITAL MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE


—
5th July, 1948
30th September 1960


Staffed Beds
814
1,036*


Staff:—


Medical
23
47


Nursing
292
478


Population (estimated)
115,100
169,881


* Queen Elizabeth
159


Bensham General
372


Sheriff Hill
123


Gateshead Children's
45


Whinney House
25


Whickham and District War Memorial Cottage
31


Windy Nook Infectious Disease
—


Norman's Riding
76


Dunston Hill
205

Western Hospital, Fulham

Mr. M. Stewart: asked the Minister of Health what plans he has for the future of Western Hospital, Seagrave Road, S.W.6.

Mr. Powell: There are no proposals at present before me.

Mr. Stewart: Does that mean that it is intended, as originally proposed, to go on with the provision of beds for elderly people at this hospital? Also, is it the fact that, in the middle of October, the regional hospital board was told to suspend work on the plans for Western Hospital and the order was countermanded shortly afterwards?

Mr. Powell: The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is that that is the present intention. However, it is necessary that all the post-graduate provision for London should be considered as a whole, and work on that is in progress.

Mr. K. Robinson: In view of the somewhat persistent rumours which have been flying around, will the right hon. Gentleman at least give an assurance that when this site is developed it will be developed by his Department, through the hospital authorities, and not on his behalf by a private developer?

Mr. Powell: I am not aware of any arrangements under which I could act in accordance with the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question.

Therapeutic Dieticians

Mr. Boyden: asked the Minister of Health how many additional therapeutic dieticians have been recruited to the hospital service this year, and how many vacancies still exist.

Miss Pitt: Recruitment figures are collected at the end of the year and are not yet available for 1960.

Mr. Boyden: Does not the Parliamentary Secretary realise that the recent circular about therapeutic dieticians merely pasted over the cracks and that what is really needed is an increase in salaries for these officers and recruitment within the service? Will she consult her right hon. Friend the Minister of Education so as to have recruitment over a longer period to make up the deficiency?

Miss Pitt: Part of the problem here arises because there are so many opportunities available to intelligent girls with a scientific bent; in fact, salary increases were granted last October, and quite generous ones, ranging from 10 to nearly 20 per cent. The circular to which the hon. Member refers made recommendations about the better use of trained dieticians, as well as of new recruits for the service.

Dr. Summerskill: Can the hon. Lady tell the House what is the starting salary of a therapeutic dietician?

Miss Pitt: The starting salary is £550 a year for the new recruit.

Dr. Summerskill: No wonder the hon. Lady cannot get them.

Capital Programme (Under-spending)

Mr. Boyden: asked the Minister of Health what is the amount of under-spending he anticipates in the capital programme of the hospital authorities this financial year.

Mr. Powell: Returns earlier in the year showed some under-spending, but hospital boards were authorised to undertake additional works. I cannot anticipate the final outturn.

Mr. Boyden: Is it not rather deplorable that when the Government set out at last to improve the hospital service and increase the amount of hospital building they should, almost before it starts, be caught by under-spending?

Mr. Powell: I am anxious to spend, if possible, every penny of my capital estimate, and I have, for example, in the Newcastle region authorised a further £500,000 of capital work.

Private Patients

Mr. Kelley: asked the Minister of Health if, in order to equalise the period of waiting for admittance to certain hospitals, he will now consider withdrawing the privilege that patients who consult doctors privately have in being passed to the National Health Service for investigation and treatment.

Mr. Powell: No, Sir; but if the hon. Member has evidence that a private consultation has secured earlier admission


regardless of the relative urgency of the case, I shall be glad to look into it.

Mr. Kelley: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is well aware of the difficulty of producing this type of evidence. There is widespread evidence in my area that certain people, after private consultations with specialists, have been admitted to hospital earlier than they were told admission would be available to them under the National Health Service. In my area, there is the opinion that there are two classes of patients—those who can afford to pay the entrance fee to hospital and those who have to wait. Is this a satisfactory state of affairs?

Mr. Powell: If the hon. Member will give me any opportunity of examining the basis of that opinion, I will gladly do so.

Mr. Kelley: I will.

Mr. Kelley: asked the Minister of Health how many patients were admitted to Doncaster Royal Infirmary, following private consultations with specialists on the hospital staff; what was the nature of the treatment received; and what length of time elapsed between the consultation and their admittance to hospital.

Mr. Powell: Patients who have had private consultations are not distinguished from others in the records of admissions or on the waiting lists.

Mr. Kelley: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, if records of this kind were kept, they would provide him with the information which he has just asked me to provide?

Mr. Powell: I think it most undesirable that such records should be kept, because, in fact, there should be no distinction in this respect between those on the waiting list.

Queen Mary's Hospital, Roehampton (Transfer of Administration)

Sir J. Smyth: asked the Minister of Health what changes he is contemplating in the administration of Roehampton Hospital; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Powell: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to answer this Question at the end of Question Time.

Royal Naval Hospital, Chatham

Mr. Burden: asked the Minister of Health (1) what will be the extent of the projected alteration to the present Royal Naval Hospital, Chatham, when it comes under his control; and what will be the estimated cost thereof;
(2) how many beds will be available at the present Royal Naval Hospital when it is fully equipped by the regional hospital board.

Miss Pitt: The regional hospital board's proposals are for an acute hospital of 550 to 600 beds. Major works will be needed, but it is too soon to estimate the total cost.

Mr. Burden: I thank my hon. Friend for that information. If this hospital is to be used for elderly people, will she bear in mind that there are at the moment very extensive grounds which could be important in making for the comfort and happiness of them? Will she consult her right hon. Friend to ensure that, as far as possible, these facilities remain in the hospital after it has been converted?

Miss Pitt: I understand that the main need of the Medway towns is acute beds, and that is what the regional board is-considering. Most certainly the board will take note of what my hon. Friend has said this afternoon.

Mr. Kirk: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the future of this hospital affects an area outside the Medway towns and that there is an acute shortage of hospital beds in North-West Kent? Can she say when this hospital will come into full operation under the Health Service?

Miss Pitt: The regional board hopes to bring 100 beds into use in about two years' time.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLARIS SUBMARINE BASE (PETITION)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Prime Minister what reply he has made, or proposes to make, to the petition against


Polaris submarine bases sent to him from the people of Sandbank of the Holy Lock.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): I have been asked to reply.
This petition did not ask for a reply, nor did it indicate where a reply should be sent.

Mr. Rankin: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider another escape route? Does he realise that the 300 residents who signed this petition represent the overwhelming majority of people in this village on the shores of the Holy Loch? Does he also realise that it harmonises with the view of organised labour in the whole of southwest Scotland? In view of the resentment at the presence of this vessel, could not the right hon. Gentleman find more distant and friendlier waters in which to put it?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir. I fear that the decision has already been taken. While we fully appreciate the sincerity and depth of feeling involved in the petition, I do not think that I can add to the Prime Minister's previous answers on this subject, nor anticipate the debates we are to have on it in the course of this week.

Sir J. Duncan: Can my right hon. Friend say what he has done with the petition?

Mr. Butler: The petition has been carefully filed for further study.

Mr. Shinwell: Even if the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends regard this petition as being from a minority, is that a reason for derision and ridicule on the benches opposite?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir. I have just said that we have no reason to underestimate the sincerity of the petition. I answered a Question on behalf of the Prime Minister in relation to this village and the feelings of it about this base no longer than a week or two ago. There is no doubt about our sincerity concerning the depth of feeling, because we are dealing with something of intense importance, especially to the locality. If I can make that clear, I will be only too glad to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions — MEDICAL RESEARCH

Strontium and Leukaemia

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Health, as representing the Minister for Science, to what extent an increase in the presence of strontium and leukaemia has been detected in infants, children, young people, and adults, respectively, during the past two years.

Mr. Powell: The average levels of strontium 90 measured in bone during 1959 as a whole show some increase on those recorded during 1958 for still-born infants, children and young people, but there was relatively little change from the first to the second half of 1959. As the answer to the Question as regards leukaemia contains a number of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Sorensen: Is it not true that the figures for leukaemia show a serious increase? In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said about strontium, may I ask him whether he is taking any steps to deal with this matter and to acquire all the necessary information so that the public may know the position?

Mr. Powell: The figures for leukaemia, unfortunately, have been on the increase for the past 30 or 40 years. There is no clear reason for connecting the two matters to which this Question refers. I am not aware that the arrangements for obtaining information on the first matter are defective.

Mr. Peart: When the Minister replies to my hon. Friend, will he give, if possible, figures for each region covered by his Administration?

Mr. Powell: I will see if that can be done.

Following are the figures:
I regret I can only give figures for deaths from leukaemia. In the age groups 0–4, 5–14, 15–24, 25 upwards these were 141, 192, 95, and 1,958 in 1958, and were 152, 219, 124 and 2,039 in 1959.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED NATIONS

Disarmament

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Lord Privy Seal what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard


to the proposal submitted to the United Nations by Pakistan that there should be a full scale inquiry into the economic and social consequences of disarmament.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. J. B. Godber): The main lines of the Pakistani resolution were acceptable to Her Majesty's Government. But when it came up in the Economic Committee of the General Assembly, an amendment was introduced by the Lebanese representative which in our view tended to spoil the effect of the Pakistani proposal. In these circumstances the United Kingdom representative abstained from voting.

Mr. Thomson: What steps do the Government propose taking to pursue this very important matter? Do not they agree that it is one of the most important aspects in bringing about disarmament?

Mr. Godber: The Government certainly agree on the importance of this matter. It will be coming up later in the general debate, and we shall be able to review the whole position again in the light of that and any possible future amendments which may be put forward.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Will the Joint Under-Secretary of State give a pledge that the Government will support the proposal which will carry out the effect of the Pakistan motion?

Mr. Godber: I indicated that we were sympathetic towards the intentions of the Pakistan motion. We must see what the motion is like when it reaches a final decision before we can give any definite indication on voting.

Mr. Mayhew: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that the economic advantages to the world of all-round multilateral disarmament are greater than the economic advantages of any one economic system over any other economic system?

Mr. Godber: I would certainly agree that they are very great indeed.

Expenditure

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether, in view of the heavy financial commitments assumed by the United Nations, Her Majesty's Government will press for all possible economy in its administration and that of its

agencies, and make proposals to this end.

Mr. Godber: It is Her Majesty's Government's policy to seek the most efficient and effective use of funds at the disposal of the United Nations and the Specialised Agencies. They have frequently made, and will continue to make, proposals to this end.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Will not the Congo lay very heavy burdens on the British taxpayer unless there is considerable retrenchment in other spheres of United Nations activity? Have the Government any special measures in mind to secure economy?

Mr. Godber: The question of the Congo is, of course, a special item, and a very large one, in regard to United Nations expenditure. If my hon. Friend wants a considered reply on that matter, perhaps he will put a Question down.

Mr. Healey: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is unanimous feeling, at least on this side of the House, that the activity of the United Nations remains the main basis of hope for the survival of the human race? Will Her Majesty's Government, therefore, do everything within their power to support those activities, above all in the Congo?

Mr. Godber: I assure the House at once that Her Majesty's Government are determined to support the United Nations in the Congo in their efforts to secure a satisfactory solution.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY (HERR ALFRIED KRUPP)

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Lord Privy Seal what decisions have been reached by the international commission charged with arranging the sale of the steel and coal holdings of Herr Alfried Krupp; and what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government in this matter.

Mr. Godber: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to my right hon. Friend's reply to the hon. Member for West Ham. North (Mr. A. Lewis) on 5th December.

Mr. Thomson: Is the Joint Under-Secretary of State aware that there is a great deal of public concern about this matter and that we want a very firm


decision from the Government and a real effort by them to bring this problem to a long overdue successful conclusion?

Mr. Godber: Yes, Sir. I agree that the present position is unsatisfactory, but my noble Friend is already in touch with the other Governments concerned on the subject. I do not think I can say any more today.

Mr. Healey: Can the hon. Gentleman assure the House that Her Majesty's Government will not agree to the proposal which has been touted that the International Commission charged with disposing of these holdings should cease its work and that it should agree to the holdings remaining the property of Mr. Krupp?

Mr. Godber: I have not seen those proposals. Obviously we must see what the Commission proposes before we come to a decision.

QUEEN MARY'S HOSPITAL, ROEHAMPTON (TRANSFER OF ADMINISTRATION)

Mr. Powell: With permission, I will answer Question No. 40.
With the agreement of the Board of Governors of Queen Mary's Hospital, Roehampton, and of the Board of Governors of Westminster Hospital, I have decided, subject to consultation with London University, and to any necessary consultation with the Charity Commission by the Roehampton Governors, to transfer the administration of Queen Mary's Hospital from my Department to the Board of Governors of Westminster Hospital.
The separate identity of Roehampton will be maintained and war pensioners will continue to have the same priority there as at present. I shall add to the Westminster Board of Governors not less than three members representative of the Roehampton Governors and of the ex-Service interests. The Governors and the ex-Service interests will also be substantially represented on the House Committee of the hospital. The services now provided by the Roehampton Governors will, of course, not be affected, and the administration of the Limb Fitting Centre will remain the responsibility of my Department as at present.
The arrangements which I have announced will give the Roehampton

Governors and the ex-Service interests a direct share, which they have hitherto not had, in responsibility for running the hospital, and should guarantee the maintenance of its unique status.

Sir J. Smyth: Does my right hon. Friend realise that his decision will have the full support of the Roehampton Governors and of the ex-Service associations, as it will give them, for the first time since 1939, some say in the actual running of the hospital? What is even more important from my point of view is that it will keep this hospital, which has such a splendid record in the service of the war-disabled, right up to date from a medical and administrative viewpoint. Can my right hon. Friend say whether the extra governors whom he appoints will all come from Roehampton?

Mr. Powell: I am obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend for his assurance. Indeed, unless I had felt that these arrangements would command the support of the Roehampton Governors and ex-Service interests, I would not have thought it right to make them. My intention is that there shall be representation of the ex-Service interests as well at at least one member who is specially representative of the Governors.

Mr. Chetwynd: Is the Minister aware that at their last meeting the Governors approved his decision in principle subject to the necessary safeguards that this hospital should continue as a national hospital for ex-Service disabled persons? What is to happen to the members of the Roehampton staff who are civil servants so far as their future employment and pensions are concerned?

Mr. Powell: The assurances for which the Roehampton Board asked are embodied in my statement. The future of the staff will be considered in detail over the coming months before the final order is made.

Mr. Lipton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he could not have selected or arranged for a better hospital than the Westminster for Roehampton to be associated with in its future work?

Dr. Summerskill: While I have no objection to the Minister's statement, can he tell the House why it has been necessary to make this change?

Mr. Powell: The reason is that the proportion of ex-Service men occupying beds at Roehampton has been falling and is now only about one-third of the total. In these circumstances, it seemed right that new arrangements should be made if the unique status of the hospital and the priority of the ex-Service man were to be absolutely safeguarded.

CONGO (BRITISH CITIZENS)

Mr. G. M. Thomson: (by Private Notice) asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the safety of British citizens and British-protected persons in the Orientale Province of the Congo.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. J. B. Godber): Her Majesty's Government are, of course, concerned to see that everything possible is done to secure the safety of British lives and property in the Orientale Province, and we have been urgently pursuing this. We have made representations to the United Nations authorities, both in New York and in Leopoldville, and we have been assured that all possible steps will be taken. A representative of Her Majesty's Embassy has been sent to Stanleyville, where he is now, to look into the position and to see whether anything further need be done.
The latest news from Stanleyville is that everything is quiet there and that the ultimatum threatening Europeans if Mr. Lumumba were not released has been postponed or withdrawn. Nevertheless, these brutal threats by persons purporting to be in positions of authority naturally give ground for grave concern and, though the immediate danger seems to have passed, we are watching the situation very closely.
Her Majesty's Ambassador is in close contact with the United Nations authorities who have, I understand, already issued instructions to their forces in the area to protect individuals from violence.

Mr. Thomson: While welcoming the Minister's statement about quieter conditions in the area, may I ask whether he has any information about reports of two British employees of Unilever being arrested during the last few hours? In

view of the urgent need of ensuring the success of the United Nations in the Congo, will the Government give the United Nations every assistance in organising an airlift if this should be necessary? Will the Government stop backing Kasavubu against Lumumba and concentrate on strengthening the authority of the United Nations in the Congo to bring about a reconciliation?

Mr. Godber: The last part of the hon. Member's supplementary question does not really arise here. It is not a question of backing one against another. We want to see a proper, authoritative régime built up in the Congo under United Nations supervision.
We have not yet received confirmation of reports about the two British subjects, together with one or two other Europeans. We understand that the United Nations authorities are looking urgently into the case. We certainly would be ready to provide an airlift if it were needed in the case of British personnel.

Sir H. Oakshott: Can my hon. Friend say how many British subjects are involved?

Mr. Godber: There are 60 British subjects of United Kingdom origin in the Province. Eighteen of them are in Stanleyville. There are also about 300 Cypriots.

Mr. Healey: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that the power of the United Nations forces to protect persons in the area would be gravely weakened by the proposed withdrawals of a large number of troops emanating from African and Asian countries? Have the Government any proposals for shifting their policy in the United Nations to persuade these countries to order their troops to remain?

Mr. Godber: Our representative at the United Nations is in very close touch with Mr. Hammarskjoeld on all these matters. We must leave it to the discussions which he is having there on this problem. Certainly, if there is any way in which we could help in that direction, we would not hesitate to do so.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Will not the Government make arrangements for British aircraft to stand by to evacuate


not only British personnel, but European personnel, if called upon to do so?

Mr. Godber: I stated in an earlier reply that two Royal Air Force transport aircraft were standing by in East Africa to be used immediately in case of need.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: While thanking the Minister for his statement about brutal treatment, may I ask whether the Government do not also agree that there has been brutal treatment of Mr. Lumumba? Are they doing anything to see that he is liberated?

Mr. Godber: That is a very much wider question than the main one which I have answered.

Mr. Tilney: Has the attention of my hon. Friend been called to the reported reluctance of some United Nations troops not to interfere but to stand aside when law and order have been flouted? Will my hon. Friend consult Mr. Hammarskjoeld on the possibility of having a permanent United Nations force which is properly trained?

Mr. Godber: As to the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, it was for that reason that I deliberately said that I understand that the United Nations authorities
have … already isued instructions to their forces in the area to protect individuals from violence.
That assurance has been given and I think that we must see how it works out.

CHINA AND THE UNITED NATIONS

3.40 p.m.

Mr. Desmond Donnelly: I beg to move,
That this House, in the interests of world peace, censures Her Majesty's Government's consistent failure to press for the admission to the United Nations of the People's Republic of China, as representing the Government of China.
I shall have to ask for the indulgence of the House again later tonight, because on the principle of this period, in particular, of our weather, that it never rains but it pours, I shall have the Adjournment debate on a problem affecting my constituency.
It may appear to be a far cry from Peking to Pembroke, but there is this connection, that when I was first returned to this House, when I was setting off, by the courtesy of the great transport system we possess, I was assured by those who helped to elect me that the worst part of the journey to China was the bit as far as Carmarthen. When I came to undertake the whole journey to China I found that this assessment was absolutely true. I make this observation to show that it is not only the third generation of the descendants of Scottish crofters who can produce a relationship between small affairs and great events.
I begin with a description of the main sequence of events which have led to the situation as it is today. On 1st October, 1949, the Chinese People's Government were proclaimed from the great Tien An Men Gate, in Peking. On 4th January, 1950, the Chinese Government accepted the recognition accorded to them by the Indian Government, which was the first Commonwealth Government to give it. On 6th January, 1950, the British Government of the day accorded de facto recognition to the Chinese People's Government in a telegram which was despatched to Mr. Chou En-lai, the Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of the Chinese Government. The next day the British representative in Nanking was instructed to make his way to Peking and present himself.
About that same time the United States Government, which had been contemplating recognition, were inhibited because of the arrest by the Chinese Communists of the American Consul


General in Mukden and by the requisitioning of the American Embassy compound in Peking. However, the British Government had decided to go ahead, and in justification of that decision which the Government took at that time the British Government spokesman later said this:
I could not bring myself to believe it was the right policy to adopt a line such as, I am afraid, we adopted with Russia in 1917–18. … When the Russian Revolution took place, I am afraid we acted for too long in a way which made Russia feel she was a nation at bay.… One has to learn lessons from the past".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th December, 1950; Vol. 482, c. 1457.]
Those were words in the last speech made in the House of Commons by Ernest Bevin, one of the great Foreign Secretaries in British history, a man whose stature now begins to rank with that of Canning, Castlereagh and Palmerston.
I turn now from the position of the British recognition to the story as it is taken up with the wider recognition and admission to the United Nations. In the middle of January, just before the requisitioning of the American compound by the Chinese Communists, the issue came before the United Nations. It was deferred at that time and the United Nations undertook no action to recognise the Chinese People's Government. However, because it was deferred Russia and one other Communist country on the Security Council walked out.
The position of the British Government was explained later that year in a statement made in this House by Mr. Ernest Bevin, in May, 1950, in which he said that it was the British Government's policy to work towards the admission of the Chinese People's Government to the United Nations. Mr. Bevin explained that it was necessary to have seven countries to give himself a majority in the Security Council; he had five there already; because two Communists were absent, it was the Communists who had prevented him from getting a majority to enable the admission of the Chinese People's Government to take place.
Then took place an event which changed the whole political situation. That was the outbreak of the Korean War on 25th June, 1950. In November, we had General MacArthur's advance to the Yalu River. In late November

we had the Chinese involvement in the Korean War. In January, 1951, we had the proposal to brand China as an aggressor, the proposal by the United States at the United Nations. A resolution was put forward by the United States, but two very significant modifications were made to that resolution through pressure by the British Government. On 30th January, that modified resolution was carried by the Political Committee, and on 1st February by the General Assembly.
That remained the situation until the ending of the Korean War. It is no part of my case that China should have been admitted to the United Nations whilst there were hostilities taking place in Korea. That is not my case at all, but with the signing of the Korean truce after Stalin's death, in 1953, a new situation was created. In 1954, China was present at the Indo-China Conference at Geneva and represented by her Prime Minister. This added to her claim to be admitted to the United Nations in her rightful place. On 17th June, 1954, the Prime Minister of the day, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill), announced that the Chinese Government were proposing to open their Embassy here in London and that there would be an exchange of charge d'affaires.
What has been the situation since? Over a period of time this issue has come before the United Nations again and again. The inhibition which, as I said just now, was placed upon the Government by the fact that there had been no reciprocity by the Chinese People's Government was removed in 1954. The difficulties stemming from the Korean War were basically removed by the signing of the Korean truce. What has been the case of the Government?
I take three statements over the years—the later years, because I am anxious to make the best case I can on their behalf—by our representatives in the United Nations. In 1956, this was what our representative said:
Her Majesty's Government recognise the Government of the People's Republic of China as the Government of China. They consider that the question of Chinese representation in the United Nations is one of the issues that will have to be settled before normal relations can be re-established in the Far East. Nevertheless, my delegation has decided to support the United States' draft resolution. This


decision has been taken because the United Kingdom Government believe that the time is not ripe:
In 1959 we moved on to another statement:
Her Majesty's Government have again carefully considered their attitude. … On the other hand, we have, of course, taken account of the fact that the United Kingdom Government recognise the Government of the People's Republic of China as the Government of China. But the overriding consideration in the view of Her Majesty's Government is that the deep division of opinion has in no way lessened.
One would have thought that nearer the present day they might have found some new form of words, but in 1960 this is what was said:
As the General Assembly is aware, Her Majesty's Government recognise the Government of the People's Republic of China as the Government of China.
The same form of words.
We realise that one day the question of China's representation will have to be considered by the General Assembly.… It is our opinion, however, that the subject of China's representation is one on which the opposing views are so strongly add that discussion of them now in the General Assembly would not contribute to a solution.
It has gone on year in and year out—the same form of words—and I suspect that we have made a new discovery, a kind of Parkinson's law of fatuity, the Government's case for opposition to China's admission to the United Nations. This has an additional dangerous corollary when we consider the voting figures in the United Nations. In 1957, they were 43 against the admission of China, 29 for, and nine abstentions. In 1958, there were 41 against, 29 for, and eleven abstentions. In 1960, there were 42 against, 34 for and 22 abstentions—a majority of eight. Of the 22 abstentions, the majority were countries newly drawn from the African Continent. The British Government must realise that this is probably the last year in which Her Majesty's Government can continue with this folly of procrastination without suffering a humiliating defeat in the United Nations.
What are the arguments against our admitting China to the United Nations? It might be argued by some hon. Members opposite that our original recognition did not accord us any special position and that it did not receive any responding answer from the Chinese.

That is perfectly true, but that was not the purpose of the initial recognition. It placed this country in a better posture as far as the Afro-Asian bloc was concerned, and whatever may have been Chinese reaction it gave us a better position, as far as India and the Afro-Asian countries were concerned, than that of the United States in those early days of the Chinese revolution.
It may be argued by some hon. Members opposite—and I see one or two representatives of the forces of darkness here today—that there has been Tibet that there is the present news from Laos, and that there has been no overt regret expressed for the Korean War. All this is perfectly true. It is no part of my case to defend the Chinese Communist Government, to condone what goes on in China, or defend any of her policies. That is not the point. But if we take the same point to its logical conclusion—that China has expressed no regret for the Korean War, that she has been guilty of a number of inhuman crimes, and that overt incidents on her borders have exacerbated the situation—then, on that very basis, Her Majesty's Government's criminal folly at Suez would have led to our expulsion from the United Nations.
Then there is the position of Formosa and what is to happen to it. I am not suggesting for a moment that Formosa should be handed over lock, stock and barrel, to the Chinese Communists. What I am saying is that the Government of the mainland of China is the Peking Government. I would also suggest that to bring in the problem of Formosa is to say that some settlement should be arrived at by which the Formosan people should be allowed to decide their own fate under the auspices of the United Nations. But what we cannot expect the Chinese to accept is a United Nations judgment on Formosa while, at the same time, we deny the Peking Government's admission to the United Nations.
The next argument against my case is the American position over the years. I know that the main case of Her Majesty's Government is that President Eisenhower told Sir Anthony Eden on his visit in February, 1956, that if this was pressed to a vote and carried at the United Nations the Americans might


consider leaving the United Nations. I do not believe that that was a practical possibility, and I certainly do not think that it is a practical possibility in 1960. The United States' stake in the United Nations is too great for any responsible American Government to take such a step in the present situation. Though it might have been possible in the early years of McCarthyism, I do not think that it is a sound defence for Her Majesty's Government to mount in the House today.
If we take that argument to its logical conclusion, on the same basis the United Kingdom Government should have withdrawn from the United Nations because of American opposition to us over Suez. No responsible member of the Government opposite, and only a few dark troglodytes opposite, have ever suggested that we should leave the United Nations.
What are the arguments for admission? There is the statement which I read out from Mr. Ernest Bevin, there are the political relations with the Afro-Asian bloc, but, increasingly important, there is the growth of China as a world Power. There is her new, dangerous belligerency in her approach to international affairs. There is her growth as a potential nuclear Power. It may be that within a year or eighteen months we shall hear of China exploding her first nuclear weapon.
There is China's declared programme of military training. The Chinese Government are intending to arm and train with small weapons every one in three of her vast population, including women and children. In other words, she will have a territorial army of sorts of over 250 million people at the end of the 1960s, allied to nuclear weapons the greatest and most dangerous military force that the world has ever seen. How do Her Majesty's Government propose to conduct disarmament negotiations without that kind of country being present at the conference table?
Then there is the recent argument that has taken place within the Kremlin among the Communist Parties of the world. This is a very significant development indeed. I notice how the "Kremlinologists" have been waiting to see what would emerge from the conference. The most significant thing emerged

from the very beginning and became even more apparent at the conference dragged on. It is that for the first time there is a major division within the Communist bloc and that for the first time in history the bloc no longer speaks with a single voice.
The corollary of that is that if we are to discuss world peace we must talk to both voices. We cannot avoid it. In addition there is the further emergence of China in a dozen other ways. There is her new interest in Africa. There is the development of the New China News Agency as a far more efficient instrument of political propaganda than Tass can ever be, with highly efficient Western-trained journalists operating throughout Latin American countries and in Africa. These are all indications that we can no longer go on as we are.
My view is that, originally, China was desperately anxious to be admitted to the United Nations and when she was spurned it hurt the pride of this great ancient country. The characteristics of her people have not necessarily changed over the centuries with changes of Government. It is possible that if she were admitted now she in her turn might spurn the United Nations.
If we are to help this country, with which we must deal in the second half of the twentieth century, towards international responsibility it may be that the best way would be for the United Kingdom to support her admission unconditionally. If she refuses, it may be true that, accepting the particular characteristics of the Chinese, the best diplomatic manoeuvre would be to allow the admission offer to lie on the table and in time let her leaders learn the folly of her actions. But there certainly is no case for pre-fixing her folly by the perpetuation of greater folly by Her Majesty's Government. I see no case whatsoever now for the duplicity of Her Majesty's Government in recognising the Chinese Government in Peking and failing to support the admission of China to the United Nations.
This, I submit to the House, is a very critical time for future relations with China. Part of the problem is related to the change in the American Government. A very significant and very important speech was made in Kansas City on 1st December by Mr. Dean Acheson,


to which I should like to draw the attention of the House. The report in the New York Herald Tribune says:
Former Secretary of State Dean Acheson declared last night that President-elect John F. Kennedy's first problem upon taking office will be to define United States policy towards Formosa. Mr. Acheson recently conferred with Senator Kennedy.
'We have to stop pretending that Chiang Kai-shek is still the leader of the Chinese nation,' he told a lawyers' group here. 'We should enter into a treaty which could guarantee Formosa against aggression; withdraw from Matsu and Quemoy; and try to urge Chiang Kai-shek to demobilise part of his army so that the economy of the country would again be viable.
'We should get the United Nations,' he continued, 'to provide some guarantees for Formosa. Having done that, we can deal with Red China on a different basis. Red China should be admitted to the United Nations now …'.
I submit that that is a very significant change in American foreign policy thinking. I should like to ask the Joint Under-Secretary of State what Her Majesty's Government are waiting for? I suggest to him that his task is to take the lead now and that what Her Majesty's Government should do is to make a clear proposition to the United States that this should be the first item of a conference with the new Administration, and I submit, too, that unless we do this we shall find ourselves in very grave difficulty indeed.
All this is not a new argument. It is an argument which has gone on over a long period of time. But if we are trying to achieve some sort of modus vivendi in this world we must recognise the changes which have been taking place. The original argument about China and China's recognition took place exactly 100 years ago this year, and an interesting speech was made by Lord Elgin at that time. He said in 1860:
I am confident that if we intend to maintain permanent pacific relations with some 400 million of the human race, scattered over a country some 1,500 miles long by as many broad; if we intend that our merchants shall conduct their trade and commerce with that vast population in peace, in some shape or another, under some modification or another, we must establish direct diplomatic relations with the Imperial Government of Peking.
Lord Elgin got his way and the Convention of Peking was signed 100 years ago.
We have exactly the same problem in another way today. What we are asking

for is a pronouncement from the Government Front Bench today which will show that Her Majesty's Government are proposing to take positive action. But on the record of events so far the Government stand indicted of procrastination over a period of years, of folly through failing to realise that one cannot go on with one-quarter of the human race as the great outsider, of duplicity for one thing in Peking and for another in Washington, and, finally, of cowardice in not making her voice heard at a time when the world is waiting to hear it.

4.4 p.m.

Mr. John Tilney: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to catch your eye. I should like to explain to the House why I think that the Motion in the name of the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly) is wrong. I had the privilege of visiting China this autumn for all too short a time. I regret that a long-standing Commonwealth engagement later this evening will prevent me from hearing the full arguments in this debate.
After staying in Peking, I went by train throughout the heart of China. I had already met the leaders of China in the Foreign Affairs Institute. I went round a steel mill and a big rural commune. In doing that I got a slight chance of understanding a little of the mixed-up patterns of modern China.
It seems to me that there are three facets of China which ought to be borne in mind. The first is the long-term hope for the future that the Chinese have in their afforestation programme on the dusty western hills and the great dam-building schemes to try to prevent their mighty rivers from bringing the scourges of pestilence, flood and famine regularly to that great continent.
The second facet is their construction of the present, be it with their modern offices, their factories, their People's Congress Hall, their massive education programme or their organised dedication and sense of purpose, which frightens me as it has done the hon. Member for Pembroke.
Lastly, there is their desire to preserve the beauty that they have inherited from the past, allied with their pride in their very ancient civilisation. All that applies to between one-fifth and one-quarter of all the people on earth.
I would agree that it is absurd that China should be represented by a hostile island off her coast and that she should not be a member of the United Nations. Without China, how can one begin to argue or discuss disarmament, a ban on atomic weapons, the inspection or control of arms, even a permanent international police force or, for that matter, peaceful co-existence?
But I deplore the phraseology of the hon. Member's Motion. Had he worded it in milder terms I might well have found myself in the Lobby with him. What is the good of hailing China as a friend if, by so doing, one immediately makes the United States one's enemy? It would be a disaster if the United States were to leave the United Nations or turn inwards on herself in isolation, and it is quite a possibility that that would happen.

Mr. Denis Healey: Nonsense.

Mr. Tilney: Well, the United States has certainly said that she would do that in respect of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, although that is a much smaller organisation, if China were brought into that body. That is just a sign of what may happen in a very much wider sphere.
I believe that the Anglo-American alliance is vital to us and that we must have some understanding of the very difficult position of the United States in the Far East. I must say that I hope that under the new Administration and under the new President the policy of the United States will change. But it will not be easy for the Americans to make such arrangements. How can they abandon millions of people who have entrusted their freedom in Formosa largely to the United States? One has also to remember the Chinese invasion of Korea, and, much more, one has to remember what the leaders of China this year have said about nuclear war, for what they have said does not help to put people at their ease.
It may be possible at some time in the future, under a permanent international police force, to have a plebiscite in Formosa to find out what the Formosans themselves really want, but until that time surely we have to make certain

that there is asylum for those who have fled the Communist terror. I believe, therefore, it would be utterly wrong to hand back Formosa to the mainland.
It might be—and I would agree with the hon. Gentleman on this—that, without Formosa, China might refuse a seat at the United Nations even if it were offered to her. She is violently xenophobic and she might well prefer to go it alone. I believe that it would be a world disaster if she did, but this is a decision which is largely, at the moment, in the hands of the United States and her allies. There are, however, certain things which we in this country can do.
I have a little sympathy with the Chinese objection to our quota system, because few of their exports have even got up to the increased levels of the quota, and in any case I believe that a Communist country trading as a unit must be treated differently from a capitalist one. It might be possible to deal with trade on the lines of an economic agreement similar to the arrangements we have with the U.S.S.R. What we can do now is to remove the embargo which, the Chinese say, poisons the atmosphere and is quite ineffectual. China can either make the embargoed goods herself or ask many nations in Africa or Asia to get them and then pass them on to her.
I urge my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to see, behind the scenes, whether our friends on the other side of the Atlantic would consider sponsoring Red China as a member of the United Nations, and, at the same time, see what we can do to prepare the ground for a World Bank loan to China. She started in the late 1940s below scratch. There was drought this year in the North and floods in the South. These have left her desperately short of both food and money. She has tremendous need for development capital.
It is a world interest that China should come into the comity of Nations. We must find her a place at the United Nations, but not on Chinese terms, for she must accept the ideals of the United Nations. If we made an offer to her it would be, at least, a test of China's good will. What would be folly, however, would be to accept the Motion, openly


quarrel with the United States, and show our cards to the Red Chinese. It would remove all possibilities of any diplomatic finesse, and I urge the House to reject it.

4.14 p.m.

Lady Megan Lloyd George: I must ask for the indulgence of the House, and I can assure hon. Members that I shall not submit them for very long to the unpleasant croaking sound emanating from my lips.
When I listened to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) telling the House how impossible it was, without China, to come to a disarmament agreement in the world, and how it was in the interest of the world to bring China into the United Nations, I thought that we were quite certain to have him voting with us in the lobby tonight. I find it difficult to understand how he can justify his speech with the vote which he will, no doubt, cast later today.
I am sure that the House is very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly) for giving us this opportunity of discussing this extremely important matter. He has traced the events over the past few years. He has reminded us that it is now nine years since this country gave de jure recognition to the People's Republic of China. [An HON. MEMBER: "Eleven years."] Eleven years. That makes it two years worse.
The reason that the Labour Government gave at that time was that the Communist Government were in effective control of by far the greater part of the territory of China. That decision was confirmed by the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill), when he was Prime Minister, in his decision that the Chinese People's Republic should be represented in this country by a chargé d'affaires.
So recognition of the Communist Government has been made by both the major political parties of this country. Government and Opposition are alike committed to the decision. Yet in spite of this, for successive years, instructions have been sent out by Her Majesty's Government to our representatives at the United Nations not to vote for the effective Government of China, not to allow her to have a seat at the United Nations, but to vote that China be represented by

a Government that, by their own act of recognition, cannot speak for China, cannot enter into commitments on behalf of China, cannot, obviously, be a party to a disarmament agreement, as the hon. Member for Wavertree pointed out, and cannot, finally, be held accountable for China's behaviour either in Tibet or anywhere else.
Why do we, and why have we, for so many years, lent ourselves to this pretence? It certainly is not because of ideological differences. A considerable number of countries round the United Nations table are Communist. It is not because the Peking Government do not subscribe to the Charter of Human Rights, for a great many Governments seated at the United Nations represent police States.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke pointed out, it is not because Communist China has been adjudged guilty of an act of aggression. If States were disqualified for membership of the United Nations on that account, there would be quite a few empty seats—including Russia, India and, unhappily, after Suez, our own country.
We had from the hon. Member for Wavertree the old familiar argument. He asked: what is the good of making a friend of China, however important that may be, if we make an enemy of the United States? If he really believes that at this stage, he will believe anything. I do not think for one moment that that could have been said of the Eisenhower Administration. Even the United States, powerful as she is, could not afford to leave the United Nations. But even, if such an argument could have been used in the days of Dulles, it cannot reasonably be used in the days of Kennedy.
It is the same old argument: we must not allow a wedge to be driven between the United States and this country. Does this mean that we are unable to express a contrary view to the United States? Does this mean that we cannot express a view of our own? We are not hangers-on. We are, after all—and for goodness' sake let us remind ourselves, even occasionally, of this fact—in spite of everything, the most powerful ally that the United States has. Why should we be so frightened of expressing our opinion?
In the Sunday Times yesterday, we were reminded of a historic flight across the Atlantic by Mr. Attlee, as he then was, when he was Prime Minister in the days of the Labour Government. He went across the Atlantic to express strong, uncompromising views to the then President of the United States and he came away not having driven a wedge between this country and the United States of America, but having brought them closer together than before. What is more important, he came away with agreement on two vital points—that the West must not be bogged down in a major war with China, and that bombing of Chinese cities must be ruled out.
How different is our attitude in the United Nations now! We must be careful about South-West Africa, because we may offend Pretoria; we must be careful about Algeria, we must abstain in case we offend de Gaulle. Anyone looking at the voting recocd of the United Kingdom representatives on these various controversial issues would think that they had no convictions at all. If they have, they keep them strictly under control. The stiff upper lip and the poker face are in danger of freezing into a mask of anomymity.
What is the Government's policy towards China? I hope that we shall hear from the Under-Secretary when he replies for the Government. All we know is what the Lord Privy Seal told us in his speech on the Address, when he said:
As to the future, then our task is to work for the reduction of tension which will remove this great divide between the nations which are members of the United Nations.".—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 4th November, 1960; Vol. 629, c. 529.]
That is a tranquiliser if ever there was one. It is a tranquiliser to numb the senses and deaden the nerve centres.
How do the Government propose to reduce the tension? Will the Under-Secretary tell us? What are the Government's specific proposals? What proposals will they make at the United Nations for the reduction of tension which will make it possible to bridge that great divide? My hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke said that the argument was always that the time was

not ripe, and the Prime Minister, in answer to a Question on this subject last week, said that the question of bringing China into the comity of nations was a matter of timing.
What time could be better than this—unless it was yesterday, or the day before yesterday, which would have been better still? What time is better than today with a new President of the United States, a new Secretary of State, a new American representative at United Nations and, above all, a change of front in the Communist world?
The latter is probably the most important factor of all. We have much evidence about the meeting of the Communist Powers when the policy of coexistence won the day. There is much evidence on this point. I quote to the House what Mr. Gomulka said:
The great importance of the Moscow Conference was in the fact that the Communist Parties had fully confirmed the policy of co-existence".
That is not only a tremendous advance, but a reorientation, a revolutionary change in their attitude. What is the answer of the Government to this change to be? To slam the door of the United Nations in their faces? Is that what they call bridging the great divide? I should have thought that in a world of unbridgeable differences the United Nations was the one meeting place for the West and Communist China.
I agree with the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. C. Osborne) who, on his return from China recently, told us, after his contact with the leaders of China, that too much time had been given to the risks which would arise from Soviet Russia while too little attention had been given to what was happening in China.
I believe that the exclusion of China from the United Nations makes it impossible for the United Nations to be an effective international force in the Far East. I hope that we shall not wait for the next meeting of the Assembly, not wait for eleven months before we take a decision, but that we will take the earliest opportunity to propose that Communist China be brought into the United Nations, because I believe that her exclusion constitutes a grave threat to ourselves and to the peace of all mankind.

4.26 p.m.

Mr. Gilbert Longden: I respectfully congratulate the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly) on having brought this matter before the House this afternoon, but I very much regret the form in which he has done so and I shall have to disappoint the noble Lady the Member for Carmarthen (Lady Megan Lloyd George), which I regret, by saying that I, too, must go into the opposite Lobby.
The question before the House is whether a nation of 700 million people should be represented at the United Nations by the Government which, in fact, rules that nation—and which is a Government which has not been imposed upon it from without—or by a Government which rules a neighbouring island with a population of 10 million, not by any means all of whom are truly Chinese. There are many arguments both for and against the admission of Peking to the United Nations. The most cogent argument against is that her whole behaviour and philosophy are directly contrary to the spirit and letter of the United Nations Charter; but so is that of many other States which are members and which, unlike the People's Republic, have signed the Charter.
The trouble is that these arguments for and against are never aired. The "question of China", as it is called in New York, is never allowed even to reach the agenda. It is not only Her Majesty's Opposition who are exercised over this issue. In Athens, last April, it fell to me to introduce a British resolution to the Disarmament Committee of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. The report of the meeting of that Committee in Athens, which, as rapporteur, I had to submit to the Plenary Conference at Tokyo in October, stressed that the resolution urged:
'that all other Nations having significant military capabilities'—
should be invited—
'to become parties to these Treaties. For', asked Mr. Longden,
'did anyone seriously believe that either the U.S.A. or the U.S.S.R. would disarm unless, for example, the People's Republic of China were to submit to the same controls?'
In Tokyo, I ventured to advise the conference that if it was thought necessary and useful to pass a resolution at all, it had better be realistic, and I added:

If we are realists, we must surely recognise that at least two conditions must be fulfilled before the world will genuinely disarm; and that neither of them is yet within sight of fulfilment. We read in yesterday's paper that Mr. Khrushchev has now arrived at the conclusion which our Disarmament Committee reached in Athens last April—namely, that no disarmament agreement is possible unless the People's Republic of China is a party to it.
I then repeated the passage from the Committee's report which I have just quoted, and asked:
Does anyone think that war will be less likely if the rest of the world disarms and China does not?
None of the 50 nations there assembled did think so; and it has long seemed to me that these successive disarmament conferences are liable to waste everybody's time unless and until China is seated at the table too; and it is very unlikely that she will consent to be seated at the table unless she comes first to the United Nations.
I therefore agree with the hon. Member for Pembroke that the People's Republic of China should be invited as soon as possible to join the United Nations, but I am glad that he made it—at least, I think he made it—conditional on one thing. In my view, the invitation must be absolutely conditional upon Peking's renouncing all claims to the Island of Taiwan, which island should also be admitted to the United Nations as an independent sovereign State. There are many smaller nations than that which are members of the United Nations today. To my mind, it is unthinkable—and I regret that there should be any hon. Gentlemen to whose mind it is not unthinkable—that we should hand over 10 million people to the tyrannous rule of Peking.

Mr. Harold Davies: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that if that formula were presented in that crude way there would be no hope at all of China accepting a pre-condition like that? I, too, have had the privilege and opportunity of discussing with the Chinese leaders their attitude to the Taiwan situation. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that the Chinese leaders have shown a lot of tolerance, and that the Labour Party has put forward a formula by means of which we might get the United Nations acting in a transitional period? Would not that be a better thing to do than to come to some


decision such as the hon. Gentleman suggested?

Mr. Longden: It would not be put to the People's Republic of China in that way, but would be put by a diplomat. I am a politician.

Mr. Christopher Mayhew: rose—

Mr. Longden: Perhaps I might finish answering one question before I attempt to answer another. The final part of my answer is that I would accept the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the United Nations should conduct a referendum.

Mr. Mayhew: The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) is valid. If the hon. Gentleman seriously suggests that the Chinese Government should formally renounce possession of Formosa, he is saying that they should never come into the United Nations at all. Whether it is put by a diplomat or by a politician, is that the hon. Gentleman's suggestion?

Mr. Longden: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's assumption that that is what it would mean, but it would not be put in that crude and somewhat brutal way. All I meant to make plain is that we cannot sacrifice the 10 milion people of Formosa to bring China into the United Nations. I very much regret that the hon. Gentleman does not agree with me.
When the hon. Member for Pembroke "censures Her Majesty's Government further consistent failure," I cannot follow him. I regret that his tactics should have led him to propose his Motion in this form, because I believe that the majority of the House of Commons agrees with his main contention; but, unfortunately, the world will never know that. If he had put before the House a Motion, "That this House believes that the time has now come for the People's Republic of China to be invited to join the United Nations," certainly I, and, I think, most of us, would have voted for it: and it might have made some impact. But I cannot censure my right hon. Friends because I believe that they have done all that they could, short of an open—

Mr. Harold Davies: That is completely untrue.

Mr. Longden: —short of an open and public quarrel with our principal allies, to have this question at least discussed. I was a delegate at the Twelfth and Thirteenth Sessions of the United Nations Assembly, so I do know something of what they have done. I am confident that my right hon. Friends will continue to press this point of view, and, as has been suggested already, perhaps with much greater success.
I am all for realism in foreign affairs and it is unreal to the verge of farce that Taiwan should occupy a permanent seat on the Security Council as "China." But surely it would be less realistic still if, faced with a choice between one of our best friends and allies, on the one hand, and an openly declared enemy of everything we value, on the other, Her Majesty's Government were to choose the latter. We must hope that the time is coming soon when we shall no longer have to make that choice, and it is because this debate may help to hasten that time that I welcome it.

4.35 p.m.

Mr. Charles Pannell: I am amazed at the speech not only of the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Longden), but the speech of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney). If this is the best that back benchers on the opposite side can do to support their Front Bench, I shall be sorry. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Wilson) usually drools about transport. It is characteristic that he never gets to his feet, but drools complete incomprehensibility from the bench opposite.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: Is the hon. Gentleman not concerned about the 10 million people in Formosa?

Mr. Pannell: If the hon. Gentleman had allowed me to start my speech and develop my argument, I would have dealt with that. I am probably far more sensitive to this consideration than he is. The hon. Gentleman and his two hon. Friends will go into the Division Lobby as so much unthinking lobby fodder, and he is presumably prepared to predict what I was not going to say.
As I understand the case so far, if there is a case, it is that the Government have done all that they could. What evidence has the hon. Gentleman for saying that? He says, "I was in on these things. I was a delegate at the United Nations. I listened in at all the keyholes. I was the dogsbody for the Joint Under-Secretary of State". That is what we have heard. I think that it is pretty disgraceful that the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has been brought to the Box this afternoon. If he gets to his feet and tells me that the Lord Privy Seal is still in Paris, my answer will be, "Yes, but the other nonentity is in another place."

Mr. John Rankin: Who is he?

Mr. C. Pannell: If the Government cannot produce the body, I will not tell my hon. Friend.
I am a great admirer of the American people. If it were a matter of choice between the American Government and the Peking Government, I would be prepared to put a case for the American Government on general grounds of humanitarianism as against the Peking system.

Mr. Farey-Jones: rose—

Mr. Pannell: There is a rule in the House—and the hon. Gentleman had better sit down before he is made to do so by the Chair—about tedious repetition, and also about tedious interruption.
I have a great regard for the American people. When I was in the United States, in 1956, I tried to get at what was really behind the feeling of the American people about China. I did not go to the politicians. They would have given me the usual clichés that are repeated from the Tory benches. A party of high school boys and girls asked me, "Why do you recognise Red China?" I said, "When I was a little lad I used to sing missionary hymns which said that every fifth man was a Chinaman. The Chinese are lusty people, and I should have thought that by now nature would have put that figure up to a quarter".
When one is considering one quarter of the world's population, it is obvious that they must be considered as a factor of great importance. The United Nations

is not a club that was opened only for our friends the Americans. It was opened also for people whom we do not like. The United Nations must represent people whom we do not like, as well as people we do.
The Americans said, "We have been investing a lot of emotional capital in China." When I asked what they meant by that they said, "We started in the missionary field in China." They seemed to think that it would be almost a betrayal of the Almighty if they recognised Red China. They said, "Of course, China is to us what Africa was to you." I said, "At least we have set them on their way." When I asked whether that would be the case with them and China I could not get any more out of them.
To anyone watching the television appearances of Mr. Nixon and Mr. Kennedy it was apparent that there is a breach in American thinking about this sort of thing. The Americans know that they cannot, for too long, maintain this façade of not recognising Red China. If a person goes to San Francisco and starts speaking about this they will show him the headquarters of the China lobby, which is a bank. Everybody will tell him tales about corruption and the misappropriation of funds by Chiang Kai-shek's Government. This is a commonplace which is known all over the United States.
What is the latest position in the United States? It is merely that at long last, after much consideration, they have begun to adopt the face-saving device of telling the electorate that it might be possible to recognise Red China. Hitherto, they have always thought that such recognition was something up with which the average American elector was not prepared to put, and that it was almost a gospel of cowardice.
The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West could not say anything against the Motion except the way in which it was drawn.

Mr. Longden: Except that it is a censure Motion on Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Pannell: I have no doubt that the hon. Member could not conceive of any circumstances in which he should censure his own Government. He gave his whole case away. He showed that


he was resolved only to be irresolute, and that he has decided that he must go into the Lobby as his hon. Friends did before. He told us what happened at the meeting of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. I want to face the question of Formosa quite frankly, because I think that it has been put forward unfairly. In the 1950–51 Government, this question arose in an acute form. I remember that at that time the view of the Prime Minister, Mr. Attlee—as he then was—was that we would not hand over Formosa. I would say quite flatly to any of my hon. Friends that if it were merely a matter of handing over Formosa, with its 10 million inhabitants being put at the mercy of the Peking Government, I should look upon that proposition unfavourably and would not support it—

Mr. Farey-Jones: rose—

Mr. Pannell: I keep getting stopped in the middle of a sentence. How can I develop my argument?

Mr. Farey-Jones: Does not the hon. Member realise that it has been publicly stated by the leaders of modern China that they would not be prepared to discuss or to negotiate the position of Formosa?

Mr. Pannell: Does the hon. Member also realise that what is dimly apparent to him is blazing daylight clear to me? He is the master of the obvious. We all read about these things; we read the newspapers. If the United States Seventh Fleet did no more during my lifetime and that of my children than sail between the Island of Formosa and the mainland to stop any unpleasantness breaking out, I should be in favour of it.
In the arguments between Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Nixon on television they spoke about the Islands of Quemoy and Matsu as not being worth the outbreak of a nuclear war. My hon. Friend the Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies), who is a great enthusiast for modern China, would not imagine taking any action which would mean handing over to the Chinese Communists 10 million people who did not want to be handed over. The point at issue is different from that. The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West has suggested that, as a sine qua non.

we should ask the Peking Government to declare that they would never, never request that Formosa be handed back to them. That is a price that no one could expect them to pay.
We remember what happened in the case of Cyprus. Somebody said that we would never give up Cyprus—

Mr. G. Wilson: rose—

Mr. Pannell: I wish that the hon. Member would sit down.
It was said by the hon. Member who later became Lord Colyton. I heard him say it. My hearing does not betray me. I do not want the hon. Member to remind me of what I heard at the time. The former Minister said that we would never give up Cyprus, but eventually the Government had to eat their words. And then, whom did we send out to negotiate? We sent one of the prime Suez rebels, who backed up the original assertion that we should not give up Cyprus. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West would expect that we should insist upon terms like that.
I would agree that the Formosan trouble should be settled by the United Nations—through occupation by United Nations forces if we were ever able to approach that stage. I do not know why the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West should think that it is inherent in our Motion that we propose to hand over Formosa just as it is. We have always envisaged that there would be a period of time in which this sort of thing would have to be settled. I supported the right of Ulster to attain its present position, and I am hardly likely to be the sort of person who would expect a very much larger land mass, with a much larger population, to be handed over lock, stock and barrel to Red China on any terms.
I cannot understand the point of view of some hon. Members opposite who seem to think that the administration of Chiang Kai-shek is pristine pure, as against the administration of the Peking Government. That argument will not stand up. There are certain practical considerations why China should be given a seat at the United Nations. It has been said that the question of world disarmament can be discussed only between Soviet Russia and America, but


we must visualise the rise of a third great Power.
I am not as optimistic as some people are about what happened at the recent Communist conference. The differences between China and Russia are probably as superficial as certain differences which exist in the Labour Party. I understand the nature and doctrine of Communism, and I understand its timelessness. My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) thinks that the deepest dyed Communism is in Peking rather than in Moscow. He tends to look upon Mr. Khrushchev as a liberator.

Mr. Mayhew: A revisionist.

Mr. Pannell: A sort of Crosland of the Communist set. [Laughter.] That shows how far some hon. Members are deceived.
I want to say a few words upon one consideration that has not been raised. I believe that our British motor car industry has grown too large, in terms of Britain's economy. That does not mean to say that I lack sympathy for all those people in Coventry at present, but I am more concerned with the long-term view of the way in which these people should be given work, and what they should do. There is a limit to the number of motor cars we can put on British roads, inadequate as they are at present, with 370,000 casualties each year. In 1956, I had an opportunity of studying the motor car industry in the United States. I noted that when their industry had reached saturation point in larger cars they turned to the provision of the compact or smaller car, to fill up the pocket in their market which, until then, had been filled by European cars.
It is as important to the American industry as it is to us to grow and grow, and to catch on to things, and to take in everything that it possibly can. The future of the British car industry in the United States is of a far more long-term nature than some of our trade optimists seem to believe. Some aspects of that market have been lost never to return. But if we were the same as the United States—a great land mass which can put up tariffs to protect itself—and if we could have free trade within a territory as big as the United States, we should react in the same way.
Where, then, is the future of the British motor car industry? I suggest that it is not in motor cars any longer, but that the growing need all over the world is for commercial vehicles and tractors. I do not expect that the Chinese in any foreseeable time—any more than the Africans—will have private motor cars to the extent which we do, or the Americans. What they badly need is tractors, and we are probably in the best position of anyone in the world to supply them with tractors and lorries. I have preached the gospel of East-West trade. I was the only person taking the view that I did at the time when a Government of my own party were in power. One of the things we do not answer—I have mentioned lorries and cars, but it applies also to the British engineering industry—are the questions which arise due to the fact that the whole pattern of world trade has been distorted by the exclusion of Peking.
I do not believe that any hon. Member opposite will introduce much morality or ethical arguments into a discussion the pattern of world trade. We do not moralise about that sort of thing. We sell where we can and we are not concerned with the gospel of the man who buys. That time has gone. This applies even in Germany where, earlier this year, I found that although the West Germans and the East Germans hate each other perhaps more than any other people in the world, the amount of underground trade that goes on is remarkable. That is because people have to live by trade. Even considering the question of trade by itself, it seems that this is a matter in which we are vitally interested.
All the other points have been given to us. The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West said that it was absurd that China should be represented—at present—on the top council of the United Nations by puppets. Another argument used by the hon. Gentleman was that this is an attempt to get China as a friend at the expense of the United States becoming an enemy. But it is really a matter here of the United Nations, and I wish to emphasise the point made by the noble Lady the Member for Carmarthen (Lady Megan Lloyd George). Surely we cannot take part in the councils of the world on the tolerance of the United States. I do not


believe that the Americans appreciate that kind of attitude in any case, the curious sycophantic attitude which we seem to adopt on any possible occasion. I should have thought that, with the coming of a new President of the United States, we should strongly emphasise that we are a nation with the right to be heard on these matters.
If we do not stand up to the United States, unless we are prepared to have some backbone in our attitude in the United Nations, I do not think that there is much hope for the future. The United States will take us at our own valuation and look upon us as a sort of satellite. They are recognising, even in European affairs, that the West Germans are the best boys in the class. There has been a great deal more respect for West Germany since the West Germans dug in their heels over the currency issue recently. We always appear to be completely sycophantic where the United States is concerned.
I hope that the debate will have the effect of indicating to the Government not only that the Opposition put down this Motion because we are uneasy, but also that there is no speaker on the Government back benches who can put a logical case against it. Apparently, the morality and practicability of the Motion is admitted. The only ground on which so far it has been opposed by hon. Members opposite is that of drafting, on the dotting of an "i" or the placing of a comma.

Mr. Longden: May I make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that it is not only a question of the drafting? It is also that the Motion is couched in terms of a Motion of censure, and I do not believe that on this matter the Government deserve to be censured.

Mr. Pannell: I am sorry, but we were elected to censure the Government—

Mr. Longden: Hon. Members opposite are entitled to, but they must not expect hon. Members on this side to follow them.

Mr. Pannell: Surely the hon. Gentleman does not expect us to be as mealy-mouthed to the party opposite as it is to the Americans. I do nor believe that

the Americans are as thin-skinned as the hon. Gentleman thinks, but I did expect that if anyone on the benches opposite was put up as a "stooge" for the Government Front Bench he would make a better case against the Motion than we have heard so far. The Government's case has gone by default and I do not think that the ex-Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who is sitting on the Government Front Bench, will add much to the debate.

4.57 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Osborne: Let me make it clear to the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) that I have not been put up as a "stooge" by anyone. I should not allow anyone to put me up as a stooge anywhere—

Mr. C. Pannell: The hon. Member has now declared his interest.

Mr. Osborne: —whether they like it or not. I wish China were represented at the United Nations now. I think that would be a good thing. It is stupid to pretend that the Peking Government does not control the 650 million people in China. The Motion says,
That this House, in the interests of world peace, censures Her Majesty's Government …
So far as I am concerned, there is no truth at all in that statement. Hon. Members opposite have asked for a reply to their arguments, and I will give one. It would not be in the interests of world peace if this Motion were to be carried, this Government were to be destroyed and the hopelessly divided crowd opposite were to take over. That is the answer. On every issue of importance—foreign affairs, N.A.T.O., unilateralism—the party opposite is hopelessly and completely divided and in my opinion—I am entitled to my opinion—it would not be in the interests of world peace, as this Motion says, to censure and destroy the present Government and replace them with men who can hardly speak civilly one to another—

Mr. E. Fernyhough: rose·

Mr. Osborne: No. Hon. Members opposite asked for an answer, and I am giving the answer they asked for.
It may help hon. Members opposite if I make one or two extra points on the questions that were asked. As the House will know, I had the privilege of visiting China a few months ago. The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly looked at me during his speech and said that we were the representatives of the forces of darkness—

Mr. C. Pannell: rose—

Mr. Osborne: The hon. Member for Leeds, West did not introduce the Motion, so will he please be quiet.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Pembroke is not in the Chamber now. I understand that the Chinese Government refused to give him a visa to visit their country. They gave me a visa and so if the Chinese Government will give a visa to representatives of the forces of darkness—as the hon. Member for Pembroke alleges—I give them credit for it.
There are some facts which the House should realise. It is a great pity that China is deliberately isolating itself from the rest of the world. Visas are almost impossible to get to visit China, especially for people from the capitalist West. Wherever I went in China I saw great delegations from Afro-Asian and Latin-American countries, but practically none at all from Europe and very few from the Soviet. This self-imposed isolation is one of the greatest dangers, not only to China herself, but to the world. The sooner China becomes a member of the United Nations and joins the family of nations the better it will be for the world.

Mr. Harold Davies: rose—

Mr. Osborne: No, I shall not give way. I want to warn the House that, as I found in discussing the matter with many leading politicians there, China is not bursting with enthusiasm to join the United Nations. She might even refuse a seat if one were offered her. Even if she got a permanent seat she would not go in while one is held by Formosa. At the moment the Chinese authorities would not look at it. That is the problem we have to face. The Chinese would not look at accepting even a permanent seat if Formosa were still represented.

Heat in debate will not clear that and a lot of public argument will not clear it.
As I talked with them I found that it was not so much a question of a seat in the United Nations but that they are obsessed with the question of Taiwan and of what they allege to be the American occupation of Taiwan. They talk of nothing else. I beg hon. Members opposite to believe that giving Red China a seat in the United Nations will not solve the awful problem of Taiwan, Formosa, but that the great China problem will remain.
I also remind hon. Members that it is difficult for us here to envisage what conditions in China are like at present. As a boy fifty years ago I was brought up in a very stern puritan home, but even my father would not have lived in the world of China today. There is a central control of the George Orwell type which imposes a fanatical puritan spirit on the people which is hard to believe unless one goes there and lives among it.

Mr. Harold Davies: That is not true. Will the hon. Member give way?

Mr. Osborne: I have Just come back.

Mr. Harold Davies: I have been there several times too.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): Order.

Mr. Harold Davies: If it is true, it is exaggerated.

Mr. Osborne: I am trying to give hon. Members my impressions.

Mr. Harold Davies: The hon. Member always does this. He twists the truth.

Mr. Osborne: This is not good enough. We listened patiently to hon Members opposite when they spoke.

Mr. C. Pannell: Will the hon. Member give way?

Mr. Osborne: No, I will not. The Chinese have this purposeful, almost fanatical, idea, for which I give them credit. I wish we had a little more of it here. When I got back from Peking I found the English newspapers full of nothing but Lady Chatterley's Lover. I would rather have the stern morality


which I found in Peking than what I found here. Unless one goes to the country frequently, it is almost impossible to realise the determination of the Chinese to drive their people on to a better and finer world for themselves and their children. It is a world such as we cannot envisage.
While I was in Peking I had the chance of speaking to one of the most important men there, Chen Yi, who is Foreign Secretary and Vice-Premier. I listened to him for three and a half hours and during that time he scarcely ever mentioned the United Nations. The sole topic was Formosa. All the time he spoke of Formosa—Taiwan. The United Nations does not occupy nearly so important a position in the minds of the Chinese Government as hon. Members in this House sometimes think. He said that if, after ten or fifteen years of peaceful patient negotiations with the Americans, the Chinese were unable to get a peaceful evacuation of what they alleged to be American occupying forces, China would be justly entitled to go to war to throw them out.
I put this to hon. Members opposite. If the Chinese Government, through the mouth of Marshal Chen Yi, say that they are prepared to wait ten or fifteen years in patient negotiation on this terribly difficult problem, surely hon. Members opposite could wait a month or two and not censure the Government in this way. After all, the Chinese regard it as a much more important problem than we do.
I wish to give another warning to hon. Members opposite. It is suggested, and the opinion is shared on this side of the House, that if we could only get the Chinese into the United Nations we could have unbounded trade with them. Unemployment and short time in this country would end because an immense amount of trade would be done.
That is not possible, for a simple reason. At present China is desperately short of foreign exchange. The things she would like to buy are oil, heavy capital goods and, above all, food; and imports of those she is unable to finance. In the next six months China will go through perhaps the most difficult period since 1949. I was told that her harvest this year will be worse than it was in 1957. When a nation is short of food, desperate measures are taken.
I asked Marshal Chen Yi if increased trade would help his country and if a trade treaty similar to the one the Swiss have with China would help. He said "No", and added that trade with the United Kingdom had increased by about 50 per cent. over last year. He said, "We are quite satisfied, keep on with that". The greatest need in China at present is for long-term credits. I do not believe that her Russian allies can give her many more substantial long-term credits. I believe that the Russian economy is stretched as far as it could comfortably go in helping the Chinese. I would not minimise what the Russians have done for the Chinese, but I think that they have reached the limit.
It is no use pretending that the United Nations has vast sums of money under its control. The only place from which those vast sums can come is America. Only America, which has a free economy, could send China such things as tractors, buses, heavy equipment and transport for ordinary people. While we are not going to kow-tow to the Americans—we are not doing that—it is foolish not to take note of American susceptibilities if we are to go to America for financial help in order to pull China out of her difficulties.

Mr. C. Pannell: rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member who is speaking does not give way, the hon. Member who wishes to interrupt must resume his seat. [Interruption.]

Mr. Osborne: May I have your protection Mr. Deputy-Speaker? May I have protection from the remark which has just been made, that I have not the courtesy of a louse? I deeply resent that from an hon. Member who has only just come into the Chamber and not heard the debate.

Mr. R. J. Mellish: I have heard a lot of the hon. Member's speech.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I heard no remark from which the hon. Member requires the protection of the Chair.

Mr. Osborne: I am entitled to defend myself.

Mr. C. Pannell: On a point of order. Mr. Deputy-Speaker, you rebuked me


for being on my feet whilst another hon. Gentleman was in the midst of his speech. May I make it plain that the hon. Gentleman referred to remarks I had made in my speech and addressed his references to me. I thought that it would merely meet the courtesy of the House if I rose. The hon. Gentleman need not give way, but he need not rebuke me for rising. At least my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) paid me the courtesy of listening to what I said, and he has remained in the House ever since. The hon. Gentleman is handling the truth loosely when he rebukes him.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member should not accuse another hon. Member of "handling the truth loosely". If the hon. Member who is speaking does not give way the hon. Gentleman should resume his seat.

Mr. Mellish: Further to that point of order. It is probably my fault, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I said that the hon. Gentleman was not observing the courtesy of the House—spelt "House".

Mr. Osborne: No.

Mrs. Harriet Slater: That is exactly what my hon. Friend did say.

Mr. Osborne: If that be the case, which I accept, it must be due to my advancing age. I am getting deaf. I apologise most sincerely. I must now cut my remarks short, because other hon. Members wish to speak.
I want to conclude by making two suggestions about what we can do. Instead of pressing for China to be admitted to the United Nations despite what the Americans think, what the Government can do, first, is to replace our present most excellent chargé d'affaires in Peking. I do not say this because he is not doing a good job. He is doing a fine job, but he has not enough power. We should send a first-class ambassador. We should send either someone who is at the top of the ambassadorial career list or a top public servant. Relations with China are of the greatest importance to us all.

Mr. William Teeling: Is not my hon. Friend aware that the Chinese have refused point blank to accept an ambassador?

Mr. Osborne: I am not interested in what happened months ago. I am interested in making this practical suggestion. Mr. Stewart, who represents us at the moment in Peking, is doing a line job, but there should be someone with greater status.

Mr. Harold Davies: He cannot have any more power than he has.

Mr. Osborne: I think that he could, but it is a matter of opinion. Our best course is to do that and, secondly, to do all we can behind the scenes to persuade the Americans to agree to the inclusion of Red China in the United Nations, if Red China will go. It is just nonsense to censure the Government as the Motion does, in the interests of world peace. I shall gladly oppose the Motion.

5.13 p.m.

Miss Jennie Lee: The Government richly deserve to be censured for the votes they have cast at the United Nations and for the fact that they have taken practically no step to help to illuminate for the people of Great Britain the seriousness of the argument which has been going on between the leaders of China and the leaders of Soviet Russia. It is foolish to think that that argument applies only to the Communist countries. It affects us profoundly. However, I should have been quite willing to vote for a Motion which merely asked that China be now admitted to the United Nations; for what matters is that we get to the point of action, and do so backed by unanswerable arguments.
Nothing could be more horrifying to me than to think that, while the Communist world is at least arguing about great international issues and issues involving war and peace, we in the West are apparently expected to take up virtually a monolithic attitude, especially in our dealings with the United States of America. This is for me a fantastic reversion of all the things I believe in. I have always advocated Anglo-American friendship, but if the price of American friendship is British subservience, that is too high a price.
However, I do not believe that this arises. Those who advance that kind of argument completely misunderstand the psychology of the Americans. I deeply


deplore the fact that there has not been a great deal more plain speaking about this, and not only from Her Majesty's Government. I should have liked to have seen a little more enthusiasm earlier on from the leaders of Her Majesty's Opposition. I am glad that a back bench Member has given us the opportunity to discuss the subject today. I should have been still more glad if the opportunity had come sooner and from my own Front Bench. I do not see why in common sense we could not have had an entirely different attitude. Indeed, even a Conservative Government should have been actively advocating China's admission to the United Nations if they had not lost their nerve.

Mr. Healey: My hon. Friend will surely remember that during the debate on the Gracious Speech I spent some time dealing with this question, but she upbraided me for speaking at too great length at that very point.

Miss Lee: I know that my hon. Friend is a very important member of Her Majesty's Opposition, but my references were rather wider than to him alone. If we are to address ourselves seriously to the problems of war and peace, we must realise that it was not an artificial or shallow argument going on between the Communists who took Mr. Khrushchev's point of view and those who took the point of view of the leaders of Communist China.
Since my hon. Friend assures me that he has real enthusiasm for these issues, I suggest that he might care to sign the Motion standing on the Order Paper in my name and the names of many of my hon. Friends asking that we should send a message of appreciation to Mr. Khrushchev for the stand he has taken in maintaining the principle of peaceful co-existence.

Mr. Healey: While I fully sympathise with the motives in the Motion, it seems to me that the terms in which it is couched tend too much to take the side of the Soviet Communist Party against the Communist Party of China. It seems to me that a British Member of Parliament is not justified in taking up such a position.

Miss Lee: My hon. Friend seems to argue in rather the same way as some

hon. Gentlemen opposite. They are in favour of China's admission to the United Nations, but will not vote for it in the Lobbies. If we are to be inhibited in anything we do by the question, "Will this be anti-Russian or anti-American?", this country's position in the world will be reduced to a complete negation.
Nothing has been more exciting than the response which has been obvious from South American countries, countries from all over Africa, India and the East, sometimes from old nations with established democratic constitutional governments, and from emerging nations which have hardly yet learned how to form governments. They have listened to the argument which has been going on between the leaders of a Communist country which has been established for forty years, with a great deal inside Soviet Russia that they want to enjoy and conserve, and the leaders of a more recent Communist revolution, aware of their strength and, still more, of their potential strength. Forty years ago Russia was arguing as China is arguing today. What we are up against is a very dangerous situation. Russia has become a more helpful factor in the affairs of the world as Russian poverty has receded. In the same way, China will become less of a menace to world peace as her poverty recedes.
That is why there is no difference—in fact, there is the most cordial agreement—between all of us on this side of the House and the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. C. Osborne) when he says, "Let us do two things. Let us get China into the United Nations and, at the same time, let us see if we can give her long-terms credits". Also, he argued, "Let us respect the pride of the Chinese as well as their material interests". I cannot think that the hon. Gentleman was making an unsubstantial point when he said, "Let us increase the status of our representative in Peking China. Let us look at the attitude we are adopting towards China both in regard to trade and to cultural and every other kind of relationship".
We have reached the stage when we are no longer even giving leadership to the American people. I believe that the American people are now ready for a move to be made on this front. But, whether they are ready or not, there


ought surely to be a British voice in international affairs—a British voice at the United Nations. We really must not be humiliated by Her Majesty's Government saying when fighting an election that they favour the inclusion of Communist China in the United Nations—the whole nation agreed about this—while year after weary and dangerous year that same Government find reasons for doing nothing.
I hope that when the Minister puts his point of view he will not talk to me about the fact that there was an American election. India was just as aware as we were of that election. India has a common frontier with China. India has been bitterly disillusioned and worried by the Chinese aggression in Tibet. But with all these dangers and knowing all those factors the Prime Minister of India has sufficient wisdom to understand that it is in his country's interests, as well as in the interests of world peace, that we should as quickly as possible bring China into the maximum communication with the Western world.
I do not under-estimate the difficulties of Formosa. It may be that the biggest contribution that we could make to disarmament in the Far East would be to remove all American arms in Formosa. We are talking about a Polaris base in Scotland. The Chinese are very well aware that Formosa is for them a dagger held practically at their hearts. They regard Formosa primarily as a base that America can use in order to hold Red China at bay.
I hope that there is going to be a sufficient sense of responsibility and a sufficient loyalty to our own standards and values, that we shall not hesitate to debate great issues and, when need be, give our best advice to our American friends as well as to everyone else. I hope that we are not for very much longer going to be represented in the councils of the world by a Government which, on issues of such supreme importance, either have no point of view or are afraid to state their point of view.

5.24 p.m.

Colonel Tufton Beamish: It is very pleasant to see the party opposite united for a moment even if the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) spent as much time censuring her own Front Bench as she did in censuring

the Government Front Bench. I very much welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly) has raised this question today, because it is one that needs airing and I think that the airing has done it good. I am glad, too, that it should have been a good Social Democrat who raised the matter in the moderate way he did. However, I am very surprised at the extremely thin attendance of hon. Members opposite on such a very important issue.
I am in line with all my hon. Friends who have so far spoken in the debate in that I think that there is a strong prima facie case for Chinese membership of the United Nations. I remember as a very small child—and others will remember it as well—asking a rather silly question. I asked, "What is it that goes ninety-nine bonk?". The answer used to be, "A centipede".

Mr. Healey: A centipede with a wooden leg.

Colonel Beamish: Yes, a centipede with a wooden leg. The modern answer to that question is, "The United Nations."
Several hon. Members have drawn attention to how illogical it would be to try to exclude China from the United Nations simply because she does not comply with the rules of the club. I do not know how many members of the United Nations could place their hands on their hearts and say that they comply with all the rules. Certainly very few indeed.
I agree also with what the hon. Lady the Member for Carmarthen (Lady Megan Lloyd George) said earlier, that mere distaste for a system is no reason for trying to exclude from the United Nations the country which has that system. That, incidentally, was one of the reasons why I thought it illogical for the Labour Party to be opposed to Spain becoming a member of the United Nations.
This question is not as simple as all that. The United Nations is going through an extremely difficult period, probably the most difficult period in its history, and the decisions made in the next year or two about this and other questions may make or break it. I hope—and I think that most hon. Members on both sides of the House hope—that


it will be possible to admit China to the United Nations without accentuating these differences.
These differences are very deep indeed, and I thought that the hon. Gentleman who raised the question underestimated them. He reminded us of the voting figures for a moratorium on 9th October last, which were 42 nations in favour and 34 nations against, with 22 abstentions. But he did not remind us of the fact that forty-five members of the United Nations still recognise the Formosa Government as the mainland Government. That is practically half the membership of the United Nations—a very substantial number indeed.
By way of tempering that remark, perhaps I might remind the House that the proposal on which the vote was taken on 9th October was one put forward by the Soviet Union for the complete exclusion of Formosa and the replacement of Formosa by mainland China as a permanent member of the United Nations. That was different from the terms in which the motion had been put forward in earlier years—I think by India. This is a substantial point, and I think that the House will agree with what I am saying.
It may well be that there would have been more countries in favour of the motion had it not been worded in such a way as to exclude Formosa. I think it true to say that many Afro-Asian countries as well as many European countries are not happy about the possibility of excluding Formosa completely from the United Nations and thus making it appear, in theory at any rate, that Formosa is part of mainland China.
The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) accused us of being mealy-mouthed towards America. I could not help feeling that the hon. Gentleman was confusing being mealymouthed with loyalty to our great friend and ally—two very different things. He also, I thought, underestimated the importance of understanding American feelings about China. After all, the Americans poured vast sums of money and vast quantities of material into China when Chiang Kai-shek was in control on the mainland.
That is the background against which we have to understand the way in which

the Americans look at this question. After all, not so very long ago Chiang Kai-shek was our trusted ally doing a magnificent job in Burma. These things change very quickly, but this is part of the background against which we have to try to understand the American view.
We have to take a balanced view of the matter. Formosa, in the opinion of the American chiefs of staff, an opinion shared by many others, is clearly regarded as part of the free world's defences, rightly or wrongly.
We have next to remember the Chinese intervention in Korea. This has coloured American thinking to a large extent. I wonder how many hon. Members know the number of casualties the United States suffered in Korea. Was it 10,000, 40,000, 60,000 or 90,000? The answer is 150,000 killed or wounded, or died in action.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Why did they go there?

Colonel Beamish: They went there to fight in the United Nations cause with the support of the Assembly by a very large majority. That is why they went to Korea.

Mr. S. O. Davies: What about the Chinese casualties?

Colonel Beamish: Casualties on the other side were very large indeed.

Mr. Davies: They were two and three-quarter million.

Colonel Beamish: I am simply saying that it has affected American thinking; they had a terribly long casualty list in the United Nations cause while fighting in Korea. There is hardly a village in the United States that has not lost a loved son. That has coloured their thinking, as it would ours if we were in the same position.
The next event, fresh in the memory of many of us, is the occupation of Tibet. How many hon. Members realise that there are 20,000 refugees from Tibet in Bhutan alone, in desperate poverty? We cannot forget these things. They are not present only in American minds. Nor can we forget the nervousness of the fringe countries such as Assam, Bhutan, Sikkim, Vietnam, Laos, Nepal and India itself about Chinese intentions. We have


been reminded by the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. C. Osborne) that he was himself told by Marshal Chen Yi that if China is not able to settle the Formosan question peacefully she will have to settle it by force. That is not something which we can lightly shrug aside.
I wish I could agree with something said by the Leader of the Opposition, which was reported in today's newspapers. He was drawing attention to two reasons why he feels fairly optimistic about 1961. The first reason was the election of Mr. Kennedy as President of the United States. The second reason—I quote—was that
despite the hostile and bitter propaganda of the statement
issued after the Moscow meeting of eighty or ninety Communist parties
the really important point is that the Russian theory of co-existence, and not China's doctrine of the inevitability of war, has been accepted.
I hope that he is right; in terms of Formosa, but I very much doubt it.
The defiance of China on the United Nations' decision to reunify Korea must not be forgotten, nor must the growing subversive activities of China all over the world, to which the hon. Member for Pembroke drew attention. I have just returned from five weeks in Africa and I can tell the House that there have been more than a hundred deputations from African territories to Peking in the last eighteen months.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Why not?

Colonel Beamish: The answer is simple. They are inviting to Peking subversive people who are sworn to overthrow all ordered forms of society in which we believe. That is why we must look on this as a very menacing move.

Commander Anthony Courtney: In that connection is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that the Vice-President of the Kenya Africa National Union was recently in Peking on an invalid passport and the Chinese scene had a most salutary effect?

Colonel Beamish: I remember that when Mr. Oginga Odinga returned to Kenya recently a Press statement was issued following a speech he had made in Peking in which he had praised Mau-Mau as being altogether praiseworthy

and "glorious". This is something which we must take into account in trying to understand the background of this problem. I mention these things only because all the points which I have mentioned have coloured American thinking on the problem, rightly or wrongly—some of them rightly, without any doubt at all.
In conclusion, it is nearly as easy to argue that to admit the Peking Government to the United Nations, in default of promises of no further military aggression, would be to make a mockery of United Nations principles as it is to argue that China's very bellicosity emphasises the need for her membership so that moderating influences, including those of the Afro-Asian countries, may be brought to bear. I could argue either way, easily. I agree with the second, and that is why I should like to see China a member of the United Nations. It is because I believe in the second argument that I hope that it will not be long before the American and British viewpoints come together. We shall then be able to tackle together the biggest problem ever faced by our two countries: how China's legitimate hopes can be achieved within a peaceful Far Eastern framework. I am sure that this Motion will be rejected by a large majority because it has been couched in terms of censure—which, incidentally the hon. Member for Pembroke, who moved it, found very difficult to drag into his speech. They were brought in only in his peroration and then were much overstated. Apart from this, he made a very reasonable speech. But I feel sure that the Motion will be rejected by a large majority.

5.37 p.m.

Mr. Donald Wade: Although I was third in the Ballot for Private Members' Motions to be discussed today, I do not for one moment begrudge the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly) his fortune on having been drawn first in the Ballot. I welcome the subject which he has chosen.
In the few observations which I have to make I shall endeavour to be realistic as well as brief. It is clear that there are two possible objections to the proposed admission of Red China to the United Nations, and I do not think either


of them stands up to examination. One objection is that it would involve a serious loss of face for the United States. However, one cannot go on keeping up the pretence that the de facto Government of China is not really the Government, and, whatever loss of face may be involved, I think it will be all the worse the longer the decision to admit Red China is put off.
The last vote, whatever the wording may be, on the point whether the Question should be on the agenda displays figures which must be considered very seriously. There were 42 votes in favour of not allowing the question of Red China's admission to be on the agenda, 34 against and 22 abstentions. That was on 8th October this year. I do not believe that it will be long before the majority is against the United States and Britain. It may be that Red China will refuse. We do not know, but that is no argument for not allowing this subject to be debated at the United Nations. I do not think that the argument of loss of face is sound.
Secondly, it may be argued that Red China has not observed the principles of the Charter. That is all too true. The way in which China has behaved in Tibet is to me abhorrent, and nothing that I can say is strong enough in condemnation of what I have heard of events in Tibet. I go further and say that I doubt whether the admission of China to the United Nations would necessarily bring about any sudden change in Chinese behaviour. It would be oversimplifying the situation to regard her as a bad boy who will be immediately reformed if admitted to the United Nations. I do not think that that is necessarily so. But her continued isolation is a danger to the world. It is unnecessary to pursue this line of argument, because practically every hon. Member who has spoken in the debate has recognised the need for admitting China to membership of the United Nations.
Is it possible to bring this about with some compensating benefits and with the least loss of face? I think that it is possible if the proposal to admit China is part of a larger policy which the British Government should put forward. First, we should come out boldly in favour of universal membership of the United Nations rather than these

periodic package deals. That would mean that automatically a de facto Government would become entitled to membership.
Some difficulties would follow from that. If every nation were automatically a member of the club, we could not have rules which involve expulsion from the club. On another occasion, when we were debating United Nations affairs, I attempted to meet that point and suggested that there might be some other way of dealing with those who disobey the rules, for example by introducing a provision that a nation which had flouted the decisions of the United Nations should not be entitled to vote until a two-thirds majority of the Assembly passed a resolution enabling it to do so. But I will not pursue that this afternoon.
In this wider programme, we might propose some modification of the veto. I should like to see the veto on the Security Council abolished, but I think that that is out of the question. At least I should like to see some modification, for example, in decisions which do not involve the sending of a military police force. I understand that Britain has proposed that there should be an inspection in the Congo of the conditions under which Mr. Lumumba is held and under which whites are held in Stanleyville. There are many other decisions by the Security Council which do not involve the sending of a military force or the activities of a military force, and I should like to see this kind of decision brought outside the realm of the veto. That would be a step in the right direction.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is getting rather far from the Motion.

Mr. Wade: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and I will return to the point which I was trying to make. We shall involve the least loss of face over the admission of China if we try to include this proposal in a wider programme. One item which I have suggested might be some modification of the veto. Another which I should like to see would be acceptance of the principle of the inspection and control of nuclear weapons by all member nations, so that it would automatically apply to China when she became a member of the


United Nations. Thirdly, I should like to see individual recruitment to the United Nations Force instead of nations providing contingents which can be withdrawn at any time.
It is most unlikely that all these proposals would be accepted. I recognise that. But some of them, I feel, would be looked upon very favourably by a large number of uncommitted nations. If Britain would come out with a bold policy for some reform of the United Nations Charter, including the automatic admission of all nations as a right and not as part of a package deal, then in putting forward such a policy she would gain considerable support from many of the smaller countries. China would be admitted and America would avoid some of that loss of face which she fears. But if we pursue a policy of drift, as we have for a number of years, we shall very soon rue it.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I agree with a large part of what the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) said when he was referring to China, but there are other parts with which I do not agree, and I shall refer in my speech to the general points which he made about membership.
When the problem of which of the two contending Governments should represent China first arose in the United Nations eleven years ago, it became clear that this situation had not been expressly provided for in the Charter. Article 4 of the Charter refers to the entry of new members to the United Nations, and there were no articles dealing with a situation in which two delegations were contending. Since then, this question has been dealt with as a matter of credentials, both in the Security Council and in the General Assembly. I agree with the view which has been expressed that the Peking Government would not be satisfied to be admitted as a new member under Article 4. I believe, from the statements which have been made by the Communist Government, that China wishes to take the place of the Nationalist delegate now sitting in the United Nations and to take the position of a permanent member of the Security Council, with a veto.
The credentials question at the United Nations has been considered as one to

be decided by the members themselves and not to be left to the Secretary-General. A guide to the general position has always been the proportion of countries which have recognised Communist China to those which have not. The present position is that 45 of the 99 members of the United Nations still recognise the Nationalist Chinese Government on Formosa, 34 recognise the Peking Government and 20 new nations have not yet made up their minds.
Since early 1950, the United Kingdom view has been that the Peking Government ought to represent China and to sit in the Chinese seat, and that has been founded on our fairly well-known principle of recognition—that the Government which commands authority over most of the people of the country and the Government which has control over most of the territory is the one which is, in fact, the Government of the country whether we like its policies or approve of the manner in which it arrived in that position or not.
The first two years of this period were under Labour Governments, and since then there have been Conservative Governments. These Governments have taken the view, with which I personally agree, that the Peking Government ought to represent China. But to criticise the Government of the day in the terms in which the Motion is couched is grossly to oversimplify the situation, to ignore many of the facts and to imply criticism of the Labour Government during the first two years.
Let me remind hon. Members opposite that when this question came up in the Security Council on 13th January, 1950, it was put in the form of a Soviet Resolution that the credentials of the Nationalist Chinese delegate should not be recognised. The United Kingdom, at that time, under a Labour Government, abstained on this resolution. To explain this, the United Kingdom delegate said:
I am instructed by my Government that, in its view, it is premature to discuss the Soviet Resolution before even a majority of the members of the Security Council have recognised the Communist Government.
At that time five members of the Council had recognised the Peking Government and five members had not. So it was very even. The eleventh was China herself.
The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly) referred to formulae of fatuity when he referred to wording such as the time not being ripe, or being premature.

Mr. Donnelly: If the hon. Gentleman had followed my remarks carefully, he would be aware that Mr. Ernest Bevin at the time, in 1950, explained the British Government's abstention. We had not then completed arrangements for the exchange of envoys and so on, as the hon. Gentleman himself has said. But my reference to the formulae of fatuity dates to the statements in 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959 and 1960.

Mr. Campbell: I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said, and I noted that he was referring conveniently to the dates 1956, 1957, 1958 and later, but not to 1950. He gave the early history at the end of 1949 and the first few days of 1950, but he quickly—and conveniently—passed over the intervening period. This meeting was five months before the Korean war broke out. I am not trying to make any particular point. I am just recognising the difficulty of the situation by pointing out that the party opposite, when in power, had the same sort of difficulties, and the United Kingdom delegate certainly said nothing about envoys and difficulties of that kind. He made this short statement which I have just quoted. [Interruption.] I hear the hon. Member for Pembroke saying that he was here when Mr. Bevin spoke. I was not here, but I was sitting behind the United Kingdom delegate in the Security Council at the time, as a member of the permanent delegation, and my memory is not at fault.
By the time the Conservative Government had considered the situation it was much more difficult because of the Chinese intervention in the war in Korea. The Chinese so-called volunteers had taken part. The next General Assembly after that was in 1951, and, as has been described by the hon. Member for Pembroke, the position at that time had naturally become more difficult because there was not much, if any, support at the United Nations at that time for the Communist Chinese Government being admitted while they were fighting against the United Nations in Korea.
More recently there was the invasion of Tibet, and more recently still the Chinese invasion of the frontiers of India. It is very notable that the Indian Government have not been prepared to sponsor their usual resolution at the United Nations as they have done in the past. When censure is aimed at the United Kingdom Government for apparently not exercising pressure, let it be remembered that India, who in the past has been the sponsor and friend of China, herself withdrew from this position in the light of what was happening on her borders.
In view of these developments, I can quite understand why some people may consider that the Peking Government are not eligible to represent China at the United Nations. Under Article 4 a country is supposed to be peaceloving and willing and able to take on the obligations of membership. But my own view is that Article 4 has already been so debased that the United Nations has assumed the character of a concourse of all the States in the world without much attention being paid to their qualifications under Article 4. I am prepared to accept that.
At present there are only two applicants outstanding in the whole world. The countries outside the United Nations are Switzerland, who does not wish to apply and who wishes to stay outside, and the divided countries of Germany, Korea and Vietnam. The only two countries who are applicants are Outer Mongolia—and the argument there has been whether she even exists as a separate country—and recently Mauretania, whose application has been vetoed by the Soviet Government because Mongolia has not been admitted.
In this assembly, where we find the Kadar régime of Hungary and other Governments whom we ourselves would not consider could be members without some strain of Article 4, the Chinese Peking Government ought to take their place as representing the authority de facto in China. The practical reasons in favour of this are: first, that it can be argued that if Communist China were inside the world's councils we should make faster progress towards the settlement of international problems and particularly of disarmament. Secondly, Communist China is likely to be less truculent and less resentful if she is inside rather than


outside. Thirdly, and most important—a point which has been made by several hon. Members—Communist China would be less dependent on the Soviet Union.
However, the difficulties of the United States must be recognised. First, their form of recognition implies some degree of approval. Secondly, there is the question of American public opinion, particularly after the Korean war, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Colonel Beamish) has pointed out. Thirdly, the defence system in the Far East and of the free world is largely American, and that has to be borne in mind in considering the future of Formosa. That brings us to the fourth and perhaps most important point, that if the Americans were to appear to be throwing overboard an old friend and ally, it might have a very disturbing effect in the Far East. None of us wants to see Japan or the Philippines go Communist. This is the sort of thing which might cause disquiet and start a feeling in the Far East that they were on the wrong side, the weak side, the side which might throw them away.
Therefore, I agree with hon. Members on both sides of the House who have said that some international guarantee for Formosa must be a part of the agreement, whether it is open or behind the scenes, that Communist China should be allowed to take the Chinese place in the United Nations. That international agreement would neutralise Formosa and would stop attacks not only against Formosa but the other way, too. This would allow the 2 million Chinese who have supported Chiang Kai-shek to live out their lives in peace and without the continual threat of intimidation, extermination and a continuation of the old war.
I would support moves to break the deadlock, but I believe that these need careful preparation. Otherwise, there is a danger of very serious misunderstanding with the United States, and I do not refer simply to misunderstandings between the Governments. This is a matter on which public opinion in that country could very quickly, though wrongly perhaps, be inflamed against us.
The mechanics of any entry by the Peking régime into the United Nations ought to be considered. I do not think they have been yet today.
It has been considered—and this is a general view at the United Nations—that the General Assembly and the Security Council are separate and independent bodies for this purpose and that the General Assembly might act with the necessary majority and accept the Chinese Communist delegate, while the Security Council might continue for some time before the same thing happened there or vice versa. It is not clear whether, in the General Assembly, a two-thirds majority or a simple majority would be required, because it is not clear whether this subject would come under Article 18 as an "important matter" or not. In the Security Council, it is clear that a majority or seven members out of the 11 would be required for this decision to be taken.
It is worth noting that, in 1950, the American delegate at the time stated that if seven members of the Security Council did vote in favour of the change in Chinese representation, he would not vote against it. Thus, in 1950, the American Government made it clear that they were not then proposing to use the veto and, presumably, they regarded this under the Charter as a procedural matter.
Once the decision has been taken in those two bodies, the question of Chinese representation in the many other bodies of the United Nations would fall into place because many of them are subsidiaries of those two bodies or for some other reason would take their guidance from them.
This is a very complicated question, but I believe that progress can be made. It must be made, however, taking fully into consideration the special difficulties of the United States. I do not believe that it would be helpful to try to make any advance by the kind of pressure visualised in the terms of the Motion.

6.1 p.m.

Mr. John Rankin: The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) always speaks with great authority on these topics and we listen to him with respect because he has been behind the scenes and has seen the technicalities of the United Nations operating in a way denied to most of us. We must take note of much of what he has said and welcome in many ways


some of his remarks. There were, however, one or two points he made in regard to which I must enter a caveat.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the Korean War. This has figured as a theme in many of the speeches today. Surely, we shall not live continually in the atmosphere of the Korean War. In my view, we ought not to attach too much significance to it in the circumstances of the 1960s. The hon. Gentleman said that the defence of the Free World in the Far East was largely an American job. I am certain that, if we regard it in that light, the Chinese Government are bound to feel that they too have a say in that matter, particularly having regard to the behaviour of the American command in Laos. At the moment, as the hon. Member must know, there are very many people who are not anti-American but who are very disturbed at some of the things being done in South-East Asia today.
The hon. Member said that he wanted to break the deadlock. I hope that that is what we all want to do. He went on to qualify that by saying that the matter needed careful preparation. Surely, this Government, after being in power for nine years, have had ample time in which to give the careful preparation that is necessary for this step. I feel, therefore, that on those three points one must accept with reservation the comments of the hon. Member.
He said that this was a problem of two Governments. I have had the opportunity of discussing that problem with Chou En-lai, because, like some hon. Members on both sides, I have been to China. I have moved through China from Shenyang, visiting the mining villages and the co-operative villages in that area, to Peking, Shanghai, Hankow, or to Canton, and many smaller places in between. Not only have I met members of the Chinese community in these parts, but I have met members of the British community, including British business men.
I remember particularly a gentleman from Inverness who had all his property taken over by the Chinese on Liberation Day. Incidentally, I tried to raise the matter with the Foreign Office. I asked him why he remained in China when the Chinese has treated him in that way. He replied, "When a man has lived here

as long as I have and found it such a happy place to live in, he just cannot leave China. I have come to like these people" That is an attitude from our own side, an individual one, but one which I have found expressed in other ways, and it is something which we must think of when we say that this is a problem of two Governments.
Chou En-lai takes the view that Taiwan is a part of China, historically and geographically, a part of the province of Fukien. While he is not intransigent in his attitude and he is willing to come to some sort of agreement about when and how Taiwan should again become a part of China, he will not yield one inch on that score; namely, that Taiwan is a part of China partly occupied by people who had to leave China as a result of military defeat and who are now in Taiwan because they have no other place to go. The idea of regarding the Taiwan régime as a Government in any way parallel to or having an authority as a Government to be compared with the Government of Peking is rejected completely by the present Prime Minister of China.
In my view, our Government are pursuing a policy of procrastination. Not only is procrastination the thief of time; it is the thief of opportunity. It is not unfair to say that many hon. Members sitting on the Government benches understand this aspect of the matter better even than we do, because some of them, in face of difficulties presented by their own Government, are conducting quite a large trade with the present Government of China. They are glad to do so and they have been doing so for many years. They realise how foolish is the policy of procrastination being pursued by the present Government.
It is right to say that two large scale attacks have been made on the Government of China in order at least to cripple them if not to destroy them. These two attacks were not cushioned by the sort of philosophical attitude which has been part of the atmosphere of this debate. The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Longden) pointed to the difference between the Chinese philosophy and ours. He said that we should, as it were, be careful because their behaviour and philosophy were so different from ours. Of course, they must be

Mr. Longden: I said that their behaviour and philosophy were so utterly different from the spirit and message of the Charter.

Mr. Rankin: Yes, their behaviour and philosophy were very different, he said. I am afraid that I just could not read the other word or two of my own writing. I had to note down what he said very quickly. I am sorry if I misunderstood him. I have no desire to misrepresent him.
Of course, with two nations whose religions are so different there is bound to be a different attitude. One has only to go into a Buddhist temple to see that every worshipper makes his own time for worship. It is there all the time, and one person can be a congregation. One can go in at any hour of the day or night because the temple is always open. There is bound to be a different attitude, in the philosophical sense, to many of the problems that present themselves to us.
If one talks about behaviour, how delightful it is to see two dignified Chinese approaching one another and greeting one another. I wish we saw a little more of that type of behaviour here, instead of, sometimes, a grip of the hand that almost brings one to one's knees and "Good-bye" before there is time to say "How do you do?"
I have said that two large-scale attacks have been made on the present Government of China. These have affected her way of living and her reaction to us, and they have produced a bitterness, perhaps, which I hope every one of us here wants to see overcome. First, we made an attack on her trade. We know about the instrument, the Co-ordinating Committee which has sat in Paris for so long to decide with whom we shall trade, how much we shall exchange and all that sort of thing. That instrument, under American domination, had one purpose, and that was to destroy Chinese trade with the West and to harm it wherever it was found possible to do so. There is no doubt about that. A long series of questions and Adjournment debates in the House have shown it to be true that the purpose was to limit and ultimately cripple, if not obliterate, the trade of China with Western countries.
Consequently, it revealed the ignorance of the Chinese position, which I was able

to see for myself. For instance, in the College of Iron and Steel in Peking, I saw some of the latest and most up-to-date instruments for electro-magnetic work and so on. I saw them there stamped with the mark "Made in West Germany" at a time when we were agreeing with West Germany in Paris not to conduct trade with China. Outside my Peking hotel I saw far more American cars than any other type of car, proving that despite the barriers we were trying to put up trade was going on through other parties. I do not know about that, but there were the goods that we were trying to keep out. And they could be seen in Peking and elsewhere.
Not only that, but, despite all our attempts to prevent the Chinese from accumulating sterling balances, I saw the failure of this policy when I went from Canton to Hong Kong. There, because by accident I happened to be the guest of a gentleman who was the agent of the Chinese State Bank, I was assured that at that time the Chinese held, in sterling, in Hong Kong, £150 million. When I asked the President of the Board of Trade if he would not use some of that money for trade with China, he denied its existence. The right hon. Gentleman said that China would need to get her loans from Russia; but the money was there. Within a year, it had almost filtered away, because it was being used by buy the goods that we should have been selling, using our own money. We were allowing it to be used by third parties.
Then, there has been the large-scale and massive political attack made on China, which, again, has been largely the inspiration of the United States. While we in this House have been professing a definite policy towards China politically, on every occasion when we had a chance of standing on our own feet to support such policies with regard to China, we succumbed to the pressure of the United States Government. I think that that is a most unfortunate record indeed, and I shall be glad to find that the Joint Under-Secretary of State who will reply now has a clear and sure answer to that part of my charge.
These two attacks have been made, and the trade one is still going on. My last Question to the President of the


Board of Trade, and others from this side of the House, revealed that we are still carrying on this petty little warfare. The Minister of Trade and Commerce in China said to me: "Now, we are beginning to export from China some of the things that you refuse to send to us." Everyone who has been there agrees about the remarkable progress that has been made—the tremendous change in the flow of the Yellow River, the changing of that great delta where flooding took place year in and year out for centuries into a land which is growing grain where it never grew before; the work of electrification and hydro-electric dams that are going up in the great bend of that river, the work on the Yangtse and, most important of all, what is being done in the North-West province of China.
Between Hankow and Canton, I had my most interesting experience. I met the Far Eastern correspondent of one of our greatest daily newspapers. He said to me, "Have you see the North-West?" I replied, "No, I do not think we shall get there." He said, "I have been sent out by my editor to report what is going on in China, and I have been to a part of China which was for centuries regarded as a desert. Now, it is growing all sorts of foodstuffs. I have sent home pictures and reports to my editor." Not one single word of his reports on what he had seen in China was allowed to appear in the daily Press in this country, even in his own newspaper. He told me that, and he showed me the only pictures that have been published. I hope that in this debate this evidence of concealment will perhaps impress hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite.
A great deal has been said about what sort of conditions should be imposed upon China if she is to come into the United Nations. Surely, there is one thing on which we shall all be agreed, and that is that China ought not to be subjected to any conditions other than those that are applied to any other nation which wants to become a member of the United Nations. We cannot expect China to be treated differently. Surely it would be unfair to apply to China, if she seeks admission to the United Nations, conditions which we have not applied to other members now

in the United Nations or countries which may hope to get into the United Nations. This debate will have its most fruitful conclusion if hon. Members opposite who agree with some of the things which have been said in it will follow us into the Lobby and vote with us.

6.21 p.m.

Mr. Denis Healey: We must be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly) for again raising this matter, about which all my right hon. and hon. Friends feel as strongly as he does. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) spoiled an excellent speech by trying to manufacture a disagreement on this matter which does not exist and never has existed.
I think that there has been a general welcome from both sides of the House for this opportunity to debate the matter of China's admission to the United Nations. There is no disagreement on the desirability of Peking's entry. I think that this has been brought out in all the speeches from the Government benches. The question which we are debating is not so much the desirability of Peking taking the Chinese seat in the United Nations as the wisdom of the Government's behaviour in consistently refusing to press for Peking's admission.
I noticed this morning that the United Nations had just made a new estimate of the population of our planet—3,000 million people, of whom almost one-quarter are Chinese. China has a larger population than the next two largest countries in the world put together. During the last ten years she has made tremendous economic advances. She is now by any standard, whether economic, military or population, one of the world's very greatest Powers, and I suggest that nothing has shown this more clearly than the extent to which her leaders have compelled the Soviet leaders to compromise on many important issues, not only of policy but also of doctrine, in the last few years and, very conspicuously, in the last few weeks.
We all agree that there can be no effective disarmament agreement in the world without full Chinese participation. No one in the debate, from either side of the House, has attempted to argue


that the exclusion of the Peking Government from the United Nations is anything but absurd and dangerous. Yet for the last nine years Her Majesty's Government have taken no step whatever to end Peking's exclusion from the United Nations. On the contrary, again and again they have voted to prevent the United Nations from even considering the problem.
The only argument on merit which we have heard from the other side of the House in the debate to justify the Government's behaviour is that there is a large number of countries in the United Nations which do not at present recognise the Peking Government. But we know perfectly well that the failure of other Governments to recognise Peking is no more spontaneous than the failure of Her Majesty's Government, having recognised Peking, to press for the admission of Peking to the United Nations. We all know perfectly well that the reason why the majority of countries do not recognise Peking and why Peking is not a member of the United Nations is plainly and simply, as several hon. Members opposite have confessed, that countries have given in to American threats—threats that the United States might leave the United Nations and that their relations with her would be irremediably damaged.
There are, in fact, many countries which believe, as we do, that the Peking Government must be accepted as the legal Government of China and, being the legal Government, must be admitted to the United Nations, but have failed to support their convictions in action because of pressure. Her Majesty's Government have never admitted this pressure. They have tended to take one line or another. At times, when the Chinese Government are behaving themselves and there is no special tension in the Far East, the Government say that the problem is not an urgent one. When the Chinese Government are misbehaving themselves, they say, "We cannot possibly admit the Chinese Government at this time".
In so far as the Government have an argument at all—and I shall be interested to hear whether the Joint Under-Secretary of State has any other argument to put—the whole of the Government's case is based not on principle, but on timing.

They say that it is never the right time to raise this issue in the United Nations. The right time has still not yet arrived.
The main burden of my speech will be to try to persuade the House that this year of all years is absolutely vital. We must get a solution of this problem during the next twelve months and, to put it concretely, we must see that China is admitted to the United Nations during the next Assembly at the very latest. That means that we must start acting publicly now to bring about Peking's admission.
There are many reasons why I believe that the urgency of solving this problem has never been as great as it is now. On the one hand, as several hon. Members have said, there is to be a new Administration in the United States whose advisers have shown themselves much more flexible in this issue than members of the present Administration. Mr. Dean Acheson's speech has already been quoted. We have had similar speeches from Mr. Fulbright, Mr. Chester Bowles and Mr. Dean Rusk, all of whom are possible Secretaries of State in the next American Administration.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: Mr. Rusk has just been announced as Secretary of State.

Mr. Healey: America will not have another election for another two years. Therefore, Mr. Kennedy's Administration can take decisions on this matter during the next twelve months with almost no political anxiety whatever. But if we move in the matter in the year after next we shall be running into the mid-term elections and all these arguments of internal American politics will be brought up against us again.
Circumstances are peculiarly suitable for raising this matter not only in the United States, but in China. The Chinese Government's behaviour in the Far East has been noticeably less aggressive in the last few months than for many years past. If there was ever anything in the argument that we cannot bring China in under duress, at a time when China is making trouble, that argument cannot be applied at present. Yet, as we all know, there are same very serious crises developing in the Far East—in Laos, Indonesia and elsewhere—and unless we can start the process of bringing China into the world community now we may


well find happening in 1961 what happened in 1950, namely, that through a failure to convince the Chinese that Western policy was to change we removed any possible inhibitions the Chinese might have had against aggressive action to pursue their aims by force in the Far East.
Another important factor which, I believe, should urge us to raise this matter now is that at the recent conference in Moscow the Communist parties accepted peaceful co-existence as the basic principle of their policy. I must, however, point out that they accepted it conditionally. Reservations were clearly entered by the Chinese Government before it signed on the dotted line and it was made clear that things might happen in the next few years which would render the generalisations in the Moscow communiqué untenable. In other words, the acceptance by China of the Khrushchev conception of peaceful coexistence was strictly conditional on advance being made towards settlements in the world during the next few years.
In my view, perhaps the most important single factor which should urge us to change Government policy on this matter in the next few months is the effect of present policy on the very survival of the United Nations. It has become clear during the present Assembly that the survival of the United Nations as an organisation may well be at stake during the next twelve months. The only argument put by Mr. Khrushchev, when he was in New York, which really got across to the uncommitted countries of Africa and Asia was the argument that the United Nations must be the tool of American imperialism, because America alone is capable of keeping the largest country in the world, which happens to be an Asian country, out of the United Nations. It is an impressive argument and it is not an easy one to answer.
Moreover, Mr. Khrushchev has also succeeded in persuading the Afro-Asian countries that he is quite justified in refusing to envisage any revision of the Charter to take account of the emergence of Afro-Asia so long as the Peking Government is excluded. The result is that by our own rigidity on this issue during the last few years, we have forged an alliance inside the United Nations

between the uncommitted Afro-Asian countries and the Soviet Union which might be disastrous, not only to our own policies in the world, but ultimately to the United Nations itself.
As several hon. Members in this debate have pointed out, it is almost certain, in any case, that the American policy on China will be defeated in the United Nations General Assembly next year. There would be a majority in the Assembly for the seating of China, if only six countries change their vote or if any twelve of the twenty-two countries which abstained on the vote this year decide to vote for consideration of the matter. It is significant that only three days ago, on Friday, in New York, the Chiang Kai-shek Government was defeated for membership of the Economic and Social Council, one indication among many of a steadily widening gulf between the Western world and the Afro-Asian countries inside the United Nations, a gulf which is disastrous to world peace and to Western policy and which can be traced essentially to the unholy rigidity of Western policy as supported by Her Majesty's Government on the question of the Peking seat.
The choice facing us now is not any longer whether to get Peking seated or to keep her out. It is whether we in the West are to take the initiative to get Peking in under reasonable conditions, or whether we are to wait until we are forced to accept the unconditional entry of the Peking Government in circumstances which involve us in the maximum unpopularity all over the world.
There are certain difficult and complicated issues that will immediately require negotiation once the entry of Peking is accepted. There is the question of the future of the people living on the Island of Taiwan. It has always been the policy of my party that the people living on Taiwan must be given the opportunity to choose for themselves, under international supervision, what sort of future they want—whether they want to join mainland China, whether they want, perhaps, to go back to Japan, under whose sovereignty they lived for so long, or whether they want to be an independent State or a United Nations trusteeship. It has never been the policy of my party that Formosa should be handed over unconditionally to Communist rule without consulting its people.
I maintain, however, that unless we can initiate discussion of these problems ourselves on the basis of bringing Peking into the United Nations we may find that the tidal swell of support for Peking's entry will be so great as to sweep away all these other considerations before it. There is also the overwhelmingly important question of revising the structure of the Security Council so that the African and Asian countries, which did not exist as independent States when the Charter was drafted, have a fair share of the permanent seats and of those which change year by year.
I believe that if Her Majesty's Government make plain in the next few months that they will switch their vote on China's entry next year and that they will campaign in the United Nations Assembly for the entry of Communist China, we can persuade the United States Government to start negotiating with us and with other members of the United Nations on all these contingent problems, like the future of Taiwan and the revision of the Security Council, which must be solved when Peking comes into the United Nations.
There is reason to believe that although the American administration is much more flexible on this issue than its predecessor, it might well be glad to have its hand forced by a British initiative of this nature rather than itself have to initiate a shift in Western policy, given the feeling which certainly exists in the United States against it.
The big point which I would make is that there can be no question of getting China to pay a price for entry to the United Nations. I agree strongly with my hon. Friend who said that we cannot demand any more of the Peking Government than we demand of any other Government which is a member of the United Nations. Indeed, the reason why we want China in the United Nations is not essentially that we think that it will greatly help China. We want China in the United Nations because we believe that the present China policy of the West is a rotting albatross around our necks, and that the sooner we get rid of it the better.

Mr. G. Campbell: Would the hon. Gentleman consider as a price that could be asked the internationalisation or guaranteeing of Formosa separately?

That is what the Chinese Communist Government have so far refused to accept.

Mr. Healey: Once we make it clear that we are prepared to support Peking's entry to the United Nations, we should discuss with our friends and also with our opponents in the United Nations the solution of the contingent problems. I believe that it would be possible to get a majority in the United Nations for a solution of the Formosa problem which would not involve its unconditional transfer to the sovereignty of Peking. Provided that we got a majority in the United Nations Assembly for such a solution of the problem, I think that the attitude of the Chinese Government subsequently would be much less important.
I say again, the biggest single case against our present China policy is the damage that it is doing to us in all the uncommitted countries. Any new policy that will get the support of the uncommitted countries deserves our support, even though it does not immediately get the full support of the Peking Government.

Mr. G. Campbell: It would be a price.

Mr. Healey: It would not be a price: it would be a solution of one of the contingent problems. As the hon. Member knows, we could argue whether or not Taiwan should be under Chinese sovereignty. It certainly is not now.
I do not think that there are solid grounds for being certain that the entry of China into the United Nations would have a revolutionary effect on Chinese behaviour in the world. I believe, however, with an hon. Member who spoke earlier from the Government side, that the self-imposed isolation of the Chinese régime is one of the great threats to world peace. Anything which enables China to see the world more clearly and which enables the world to see China more clearly would be of tremendous advantage to us all.
To sum up, we have all agreed so far in this debate, and I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary for State will say that he agrees, too—I hope he will say this because his hon. Friends have said it for him, but we have so far had not a clear Government statement on the


matter—that the exclusion of Peking from the Chinese seat is totally unjustified and highly dangerous. If we believe that we must believe that continued support by the Government of the exclusion of Peking from the United Nations is not only a betrayal of the Government's express conviction but a humiliating and unnecessary surrender to foreign pressures, a surrender which deserves the severest censure from anyone on either side of the House who cherishes the United Nations or has pride in his country.
For that reason, I hope that there will be overwhelming support for the Motion when we vote at seven o'clock.

6.41 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. J. B. Godber): This Motion is a Motion of censure, as the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) made clear in his last few words, but I would say that the discussion today has been conducted in the main with very studied moderation; and I think that that has been a very good thing. I think that we have had a very useful debate on this very difficult and thorny problem, but I would say that it does not really amount to a censure on which we shall vote in a short time.
I will try to show the Government's point of view in relation to this question, in response to the hon. Member for Leeds, East, but I must paint it against the correct background. This Motion seeks to censure the Government, as I said, for their
consistent failure to press for the admission to the United Nations of the People's Republic of China, as representing the Government of China.
Since we recognise the People's Republice of China as the Government of China the Motion therefore attacks the Government for failing to press for admission into the United Nations of a Government which we recognise.
It is, perhaps, well to begin by restating our position on the question of recognition. Generally speaking, it is the view of the Government that when, outside the existence of a state of war, a foreign Government are in obvious control of the territory which they claim to govern, they should be recognised as the Government of that country. This

is a purely practical matter, and, in our view, has nothing to do with the way that Government assumed power or the way they control the people they purport to govern. It is simply a matter of recognising a fact.
As the House is aware, other Governments set themselves different criteria for recognition. They take into account the way the Government seeking recognition came into power, the way they behave themselves internationally, outstanding disputes that there may be between them and other Powers whose recognition is sought, and various matters of this kind. In fact, in the view of some States, political recognition is, as it were, an accolade of approval. The fact that Her Majesty's Government do not hold this view does not mean that they need pay no attention to the views of others.
On this point, I would emphasise that although the case is not exactly parallel the same differences of view exist over the question of admission to the United Nations. Generally speaking, the Government believe that a sovereign State in clear control of its territory should be admitted to the United Nations. Although all sovereign States are equal in international status it naturally follows from the Government's general view that a country so large in size and population as the People's Republic of China is better in the United Nations than out of it. I do not say that that country or any other country has a prescriptive right to be a member of the United Nations; I say simply that as a practical matter we think that it should be in. Here again, other States take different views.
In the specific case of the People's Republic of China it is argued that she has not yet purged herself of the aggression in Korea for which she was condemned by the United Nations and of which we have been reminded in the debate. [Interruption.] I am giving the view of other nations who hold this view generally and genuinely. It is argued that her international actions over the last ten years since she assumed power have not been such as to give any grounds for confidence that, if accepted into the United Nations, she would loyally and faithfully abide by the principles of the Charter. A recent instance is her activities in Tibet, about which I


know many hon. Members feel strongly, and we have been reminded of that in the debate. These facts have led certain countries to maintain a strong opposition to the admission of China.

Mr. Healey: The hon. Gentleman has been arguing about the circumstances in which States must be admitted to the United Nations, but surely there has never been any argument about China's membership of the United Nations as such. The only argument is which Government represent the State of China. Surely the Government took their decision on that part of the argument when they recognised the Peking Government in 1947.

Mr. Godber: Yes. I was trying to show how certain other States were looking at this problem and I specifically said that this was not the Government's view. A nation which advocates that world war is necessary and inevitable can scarcely complain if some of those who are trying to organise peace are lukewarm about her admission to the United Nations. These are practical facts. Nothing that we can do and say in this House today can alter them.
The point on which this Motion seeks to censure the Government must, therefore, be that, in the light of these established and incontrovertible facts, the Government have failed to press for the admission of China into the United Nations. In the view of some people, and, perhaps, in that of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly), who moved the Motion, the reason for the Government's failure to press for this admission is simply their unwillingness openly and publicly to oppose the known views and position of the United States. This is what has been said by a number of Members today. This is the sort of easy answer that no doubt pleases some, but the issue is far more complicated than it might lead us to suppose.
Hon. Members opposite have said that over the last years the attitude of the United States towards China has been unnecessarily inflexible. That is an arguable point, but let no one forget that the attitude of China towards the United States, towards the free world, and towards her own admission into the United Nations has been even more inflexible

than that of any of her opponents. The Chinese authorities have repeatedly made clear in their public statements that their interest in getting into the United Nations is qualified by other and stronger motives of which the principal—we must face this, and it has not been faced sufficiently by some hon. Members opposite—is the banishment of the United States, and, indeed, if one follows the argument logically, of all the free world, from the whole area of the Far East and the Western Pacific.
Before the Chinese will even begin to consider any negotiation for a settlement of the complex questions, they demand that the United States should completely withdraw from the Formosa area and leave that island with its 10 million inhabitants, 8 million of whom are indigenous Formosans, to be dealt with by the Chinese Government as they choose. The attitude of the Chinese Government is absolutely to refuse to negotiate a settlement for Formosa acceptable to both parties, and, what is more important, to the Formosan people. Hon. Members on this side have made that point abundantly clear in the debate today.
Hon. Members opposite have not, I think, faced up to this particular problem, and I say to them that this is really a difficult aspect of it which cannot be slurred over but which has to be faced. The Government have no evidence whatsoever to show that the 8 million Formosans, to say nothing of the 2 million mainland Chinese on that island, have any desire to cast their lot with that of the mainland. Yet that is what Peking demands. I doubt whether it is the feeling of the House that, much as hon. Members may like the Peking Government to be in the United Nations, she should gain admittance entirely on those terms. I do not think that I have heard that suggestion.
There seems also to be an opinion that it is the United States alone who stand between China and the United Nations. Indeed, it has been said in this debate. This is far from being the case. I frankly admit that, because of the moratorium, the United Nations has had no opportunity in recent years to show by a vote how many of its members are in favour of the admission of China and how many are against it.
It is certainly arguable, and I will revert to this point later, that instead of the annual moratorium which precludes even the debating of the issue, it would be more positive to debate the substance of the issue itself. The fact remains that each year the moratorium, that is to say the exclusion of the subject from debate, has been passed by the General Assembly. This year it was passed by 42 votes to 34 with 22 abstentions.
This means that, leaving out the countries which prefer to express no opinion, there is still a majority in the United Nations who agree with the view that Her Majesty's Government have maintained over the last several years, that to introduce this subject could lead to no satisfactory solution but only to profitless acrimony in the United Nations. It is perhaps also worth pointing out here that 46 members of the United Nations—I think that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Colonel Beamish) said it was 45—still recognise the Nationalist authorities in Formosa as the legitimate Government of China and only 34, including this country, recognise the Chinese People's Government in Peking. It is, therefore, by no means certain that if the moratorium were abandoned and the issue came to a substantive vote, a majority would be in favour of the admission of China.
There is the further complication, of which hon. Members will be well aware, that the Chinese Government in Peking have made it abundantly clear that they not only regard China's seat as theirs, but that they will not occupy it unless and until the Nationalists have been thrown out not only from that seat, but from the United Nations altogether.
In all these circumstances I suggest to hon. Members that if, over the last few years, Her Majesty's Government had pressed for the admission of the Government of China this would only have made confusion worse confounded. There was in our view no course open to us but to work patiently and unobtrusively for an easing of tension on either side, in the hope that the day would come when this question could be discussed on its merits without arousing all sorts of passions and fears which could not easily be allayed, and

without doing violence to the rights and freedoms of other peoples.
Several hon. Members have accused us of not taking a dramatic stand and giving a dramatic lead. That is all very well. It is very nice to be in a position to do that and it can sometimes produce dividends, but in this case I do not believe that it would have done so. It would have exacerbated our difficulties. What we want is to make progress on this matter and not get bogged down again by raising unnecessary feelings.
In about six weeks a new Administration will take office in the United States. We do not know what the policy of that Administration will be, but we hope to discuss this question with them at an early stage, as we have done in friendly and workmanlike fashion with the present Administration. Hon. Members have called attention to the speech of Mr. Dean Acheson, which is certainly very interesting and which we have studied very closely. I note that he said at another stage in a television interview during the same Kansas visit that his rôle was as
… a canvasser of informed opinion, and a flier of trial balloons.
It is interesting to see that in connection with the speech to which reference has been made.
I should like to feel that it might be possible also to discuss this matter in workmanlike and practical fashion in the same way with the Chinese Government, but we are faced with real barriers. They say that they have a right to China's seat and the Nationalists have none. They say that the United States must be expelled from Formosa and Eastern Asia. They say that the future of Formosa is a matter for them only to decide. I would say that this is hardly a good augury for fair and profitable negotiations.
Since, for the reasons I have given, it would have been profitless and even damaging to press for China's admission to the United Nations, we have sought in other ways to maintain and expand contact with her. We have a diplomatic mission in Peking which functions, by and large, in the same manner as the diplomatic missions elsewhere. I was glad to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. C. Osborne) pay tribute


to it. Her Majesty's Government in the past sought to raise the mission to ambassadorial status. We should be happy if there were reciprocal arrangements to do the same now.
The range of the mission's contacts with Chinese officials and the Chinese public generally must depend, in the nature of things, on the willingness of the Chinese authorities to foster such contacts. The more they are prepared to do so the more useful our mission will be.
We seek, also, to expand our relations with China in such other ways as are open to us. Our trade relations have expanded and are progressing reasonably satisfactorily, but there are clearly greater possibilities here which we, for our part, are anxious to explore. For example, the Sino-British Trade Council has recently invited the vice-chairman of the China Council for the Promotion of International Trade to lead a mission to this country. This is one example of the ways in which we can help.
But the Chinese have a tendency to suggest to us, as to other trading nations, that these commercial relations could be generally improved if our political attitude were more satisfactory. It follows from what I have said already that by this the Chinese mean that we should accept the Chinese position on all these complex issues of which I have spoken. I need not emphasise to the House the dangers to which the acceptance of this argument might lead.
Some people also argue that there is an indefensible distinction between the way we deal with the Soviet Union and other Communist countries, on the one hand, and the way we deal with China, on the other. But, as far as the United Kingdom is concerned, any difference there may be between our relations with the Soviet Union and our relations with China is not of our making. It is due rather to the doctrinaire ideological position taken by the Chinese themselves

There is no good reason why we here in the United Kingdom should not have the same relations with China as we have with the Soviet Union if the Chinese themselves want it.

We believe, in spite of our different ideologies, that we must and can live in the same world together in peace and achieve at least some measure of harmony. If the Chinese should take this view, I believe that the whole problem of our relations, which I know concern hon. Members on this side of the House as well as hon. Members opposite, would take a very marked turn for the better.

I hope that what I have said has indicated that we, on this side, and the Government in particular, are anxious to make progress in this field, but we cannot for one moment accept the charge in the Motion which censures us for our failure to press the admission. I suggest that the reasons I have given are cogent and that they show why we have had to proceed more slowly than some hon. Members wish. I refute the censure Motion and I ask my hon. Friends to oppose it.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that everything he has said about Formosa, about Tibet, and about other troublesome matters in which China has been engaged constitute the strongest of all reasons for giving China at the earliest possible moment the seat to which she is legally entitled in the United Nations?

Mr. Godber: It may well be that there are reasons for bringing China in. I thought that I had stated my view on that, but I also said that she was unwilling to come in unless we previously gave way to her on Formosa, and that we are unwilling to do.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 177, Noes 259.

Division No. 21]
AYES
[6.59 p.m.


Ainsley, William
Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S. W.)
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)


Albu, Austen
Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Castle, Mrs. Barbara


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Bowles, Frank
Chetwynd, George


Awbery, Stan
Boyden, James
Cliffe, Michael


Bacon, Miss Alice
Brockway, A. Fenner
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)


Beaney, Alan
Broughton, Dr A. D. D.
Cronin, John


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)


Bence, Cyril (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)


Benson, Sir George
Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Davies, Harold (Leek)


Blackburn, F.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Davies Ifor (Gower)




Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Reynolds, G. W.


Deer, George
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Delargy, Hugh
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Diamond, John
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)


Dodds, Norman
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Ross, William


Donnelly, Desmond
Lipton, Marcus
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter
McCann, John
Skeffington, Arthur


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
MacColl, James
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
McInnes, James
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Evans, Albert
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Small, William


Fernyhough, E.
Mackie, John
Snow, Julian


Finch, Harold
McLeavy, Frank
Sorensen, R. W.


Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Spriggs, Leslie


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Manuel, A. C.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Mapp, Charles
Stones, William


George, Lady Megan Lloyd
Marsh, Richard
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mason, Roy
Strauss, Rt. Hn. C. R. (Vauxhall)


Gourlay, Harry
Mayhew, Christopher
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Grey, Charles
Mellish, R. J.
Swain, Thomas


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Millan, Bruce
Swingler, Stephen


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mitchison, G. R.
Sylvester, George


Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Monslow, Walter
Symonds, J. B.


Gunter, Ray
Moody, A. S.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Morris, John
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Hannan, William
Moyle, Arthur
Thomson, C. M. (Dundee, E.)


Hayman, F. H.
Neal, Harold
Thornton, Ernest


Healey, Denis
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Thorpe, Jeremy


Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)




Herbison, Miss Margaret
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Phllip (Derby, S.)
Tomney, Frank


Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Oliver, G. H.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Holman, Percy
Oram, A. E.
Wainwright, Edwin


Houghton, Douglas
Owen, Will
Warbey, William


Howell, Charles A.
Padley, W. E.
Watkins, Tudor


Hoy, James H.
Paget, R. T.
Weitzman, David


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Pargiter, G. A.
White, Mrs. Elrene


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Whitlock, William


Hunter, A. E.
Parkin B. T. (Paddington, N.)
Wigg, George


Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Pavitt, Laurence
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Janner, Barnett
Peart, Frederick
Wilkins, W. A.


Jeger, George
Pentland, Norman
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Popplewell, Ernest
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Prentice, R. E.
Wyatt, Woodrow


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Probert, Arthur
Zilliacus, K.


Kelley, Richard
Proctor, W. T.



Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Randall, Harry
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


King, Dr. Horace
Rankin, John
Mr. Charles Pannell and


Lawson, George
Redhead, E. C.
Mr. Darling.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Burden, F. A.
du Cann, Edward


Aitken, W. T.
Butcher, Sir Herbert
Duncan, Sir James


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Duthie, Sir William


Allason, James
Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)


Alport, Rt. Hon. C. J. M.
Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Elliott, R. W. (Newcastle-on-Tyne, N.)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian (Preston, N.)
Cary, Sir Robert
Emery, Peter


Arbuthnot, John
Channon, H. P. G.
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Chataway, Christopher
Errington, Sir Eric


Atkins, Humphrey
Chichester-Clark, R.
Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.


Barber, Anthony
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Farey-Jones, F. w.


Barter, John
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Finlay, Graeme


Batsford, Brian
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Fisher, Nigel


Baxter, sir Beverley (Southgate)
Cleaver, Leonard
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Bell, Ronald (S. Bucks.)
Cole, Norman
Foster, John


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth)
Collard, Richard
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Button)


Bidgood, John C.
Cooke, Robert
Freeth, Denzil


Biggs-Davison, John
Cooper, A. E.
Gammans, Lady


Bingham, R. M.
Corfield, F. V.
Gardner, Edward


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Costain, A. P.
Gibson-Watt, David


Bishop, F. P.
Coulson, J. M.
Glover, Sir Douglas


Black, Sir Cyril
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)


Bossom, Clive
Craddock, Sir Beresford
Godber, J. B.


Bourne-Arton, A.
Critchley, Julian
Goodhew, Victor


Box, Donald
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Gower, Raymond


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Crowder, F. P.
Grant, Rt. Hon. William (Woodside)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Cunningham, Knox
Green, Alan


Braine, Bernard
Currle, G. B. H.
Gresham Cooke, R.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Grimston, Sir Robert


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.


Brooman-White, R.
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Gurden, Harold


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Doughty, Charles
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Drayson, G. B.
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)







Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Harris, Reader (Heston)
McMaster, Stanley R.
Roots, William


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Maopherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Maddan, Martin
Russell, Ronald


Hastings, Stephen
Maitland, Sir John
Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan


Hay, John
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Scott-Hopkins, James


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Seymour, Leslie


Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest
Sharples, Richard


Hendry, Forbes
Marshall, Douglas
Shaw, M.


Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Marten, Neil
Shepherd, William


Hiley, Joseph
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Simon, Sir Jocelyn


Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Mawby, Ray
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Hinohingbrooke, Viscount
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Hirst, Geoffrey
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Speir, Rupert


Hobson, John
Mills, Stratton
Stodart, J. A.


Holland, Philip
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Storey, Sir Samuel


Hollingworth, John
Moore, Sir Thomas (Ayr)
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John
Morgan, William
Sumner, Donald (Orpington)


Hopkins, Alan
Morrison, John
Tapsell, Peter


Hornby, R. P.
Nabarro, Gerald
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)


Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Noble, Michael
Teeling, William


Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)
Nugent, Sir Richard
Temple, John M.


Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Hughes-Young, Michael
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Osborne, Cyril (Louth)
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)


Iremonger, T. L.
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Turner, Colin


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Peel, John
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Percival, Ian
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Peyton, John
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Joseph, Sir Keith
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Kerby, Capt. Henry
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Pitman, I. J.
Wall, Patrick


Kershaw, Anthony
Pitt, Miss Edith
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Kirk, Peter
Pott, Percivall
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Lambton, Viscount
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Watts, James


Langford-Holt, J.
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Leavey, J. A.
Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)
Whitelaw, William


Leburn, Gilmour
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Linstead, Sir Hugh

Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Litchfield, Capt. John
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Longbottom, Charles
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Wise, A. R.


Longden, Gilbert
Ramsden, James
Woodhouse, C. M.


Loveys, Walter H.
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Woodnutt, Mark


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Rees, Hugh
Woollam, John


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Worsley, Marcus


McAdden, Stephen
Renton, David



MacArthur, Ian
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute &amp; N. Ayrs.)
Ridsdale, Julian
Sir Charles Mott-Radclyffe and


McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Rippon, Geoffrey
Colonel Beamish.

Orders of the Day — PATENTS AND DESIGNS (RENEWALS, EXTENSIONS AND FEES) BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

7.10 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Niall Macpherson): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is not a major Bill but, though short, it is, I fear, a little complicated to explain. The last major legislation on patents was introduced by the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) the evening after an all-night sitting in summer, 1949, and the debate was wound up by the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice)—if I may say so, with his customary lucidity—and I am glad to see him in his place today. In the same year the Patents Act and the Registered Designs Act, both of which were consolidation Measures, were passed. These are the two Acts which this Bill seeks to amend.
Amendments are necessary for three reasons. The first is to enable this country to ratify the new text of the Industrial Property Convention on Patents, Designs and Trade Marks, which was agreed at a diplomatic conference held at Lisbon in October, 1958. The second reason is to amend the law regarding late applications for renewal of designs, so as to make it what all concerned seem to have thought it was. The third reason is to enable higher fees to be charged for patents than the maximum permitted under the 1949 Act.
I come, first, to Clause 1 of the Bill. There is only one change in our existing law necessitated by the Lisbon Convention. That in itself is very satisfactory from our point of view and may be taken as quite a feather in our national headgear. The change relates to the time allowed for the payment of renewal fees for registered patents and designs.
At present, if the yearly renewal fee for the patent is not paid by the due date, the applicant has three months as of right in which to pay, but he must also pay a fine. If he fails to pay within three months, his patent ceases to have effect, although he may have it restored

if he can show that his failure to pay was unintentional.
There are important differences in this respect between patent and design cases, to which I shall refer in a moment, but there are similar provisions in the designs legislation for the late payment of renewal fees. The new text of the Convention demands that this three months' period of grace for the payment of fees be extended to six months in each case. These extensions are provided for in Clause 1 (1).
I come now to the second amendment. While the Bill was being drafted a discrepancy between the provisions for the late payment of renewal fees contained in the two Acts governing patents and designs came to light. Designs are protected initially for five years, but it is possible, on payment of a renewal fee, to obtain protection for two further periods of five years each, making a total of fifteen years. Until 1949, three months was allowed in each case in which to make late applications for design renewals, but there was no power to levy a fine for being late. One of the amendments introduced in the 1949 Registered Designs Act gave such a power.
That amendment, however, was so worded that although the renewal fee could be paid late, the actual application for renewal had to be made before the end of the five-year period. In practice, the renewal fee is paid by means of stamps impressed on the application form.
As our existing obligations under the Convention require that we should allow three months' grace for the payment of renewal fees, it is only sensible that the renewal application itself should be allowed to be made within this period. In any case, it is desirable that the renewal provisions relating to designs and patents should be the same in this respect as it used to be before the 1949 Act.
Clause 1 (2) restores the pre-1949 position by providing that applications may be made during the period allowed for the payment of renewal fees. This particular effect of the 1949 design legislation was not, I am sure, intended by the Government of the day, and it passed unnoticed by the designs registry. In consequence, the old practice was continued, except for the fine for late applications.
Indeed, practitioners as well as officials have worked on the commonsense assumption that a valid extension could be obtained if the application itself were made during the three months' grace allowed for the payment of the fees. As a result, about 300 designs have been renewed on application made after the current period for protection had expired, but within the subsequent three months allowed for the payment of fees. I am sure that the House will think it right that the protection which it was thought had been afforded by these designs should be validated. Clause 1 (3) has, therefore, been inserted in the Bill to validate the extensions which have already been made.
The third main purpose of the Bill is to provide a procedure whereby the first Schedule to the Patents Act, 1949, which specified the maximum amounts chargeable in respect of certain fees, can be varied with a view to enabling those fees to be raised to meet the increased costs which are facing the Patent Office. The Bill itself does not vary the fees. It provides a procedure for varying them.
The fees were last raised, after many years, in 1955, but that increase has not sufficed to meet the rising costs. For 1960–61, it was estimated that there will be a deficit of £132,000 on the operation of the patents, trade marks and designs services. This was estimated a year ago, and the figures will be reviewed again before actual increases are proposed.
As those conversant with these matters will know, to obtain a patent one has to pay a fee of £1 on filing the initial application; a fee of £4 on filing the complete specification; and a sealing fee of £3 on the grant of the patent. After the first four years of the life of the patent, yearly renewal fees are payable, varying from a fee of £5 in the fifth year to a fee of £20 in the sixteenth year.
By far the greater part of the expenditure of the Patent Office is incurred in the process of examining patents before they are granted. On the other hand, about 70 per cent. of its receipts come from renewal fees and 10 per cent. from fees for sealing. That has long been accepted as right, and there is no intention of shifting the burden.
It is undoubtedly in the public interest that the fees payable on application for

a patent should not be too high, and that those payable for renewal should increase progressively as a patent gets established on the market. At the same time, the fee of £1 for initial application has remained unaltered since 1884, while the fee of £4 for a complete specification is only £1 more than it was three-quarters of a century ago. As I have said, the deficit figure I have quoted was estimated a year ago, and a final review will be made before actual increases are proposed.
Section 99 of the Patents Act, 1949, provides that the fees may be prescribed by rules made by the Board of Trade with the consent of the Treasury. Such rules are Statutory Instruments which are subject to negative Resolution in either House of Parliament. Indeed, that has been the procedure since 1883, but Section 99 contains the proviso that certain maxima laid down in the First Schedule to the Act shall not be exceeded.
With two exceptions, these maxima are the same as were laid down in the Patents Act, 1883, the exceptions being the fee on filing a complete specification—which is £1 more than it was in 1883—and the sealing fee—that on granting a patent—which was first introduced in this century.
Some of the renewal fees, as well as the two initial fees are standing now at the maxima provided for in the Act. If they are to be raised—and we would be departing radically from long-established policy were we not to raise them—we have to consider how best to do it. It would be cumbersome to have to pass legislation each time it became necessary to raise one of the scheduled fees, and I doubt whether any hon. Member would advocate that.
As introduced in another place, the Bill originally simply repealed the Schedule altogether, leaving the necessary Parliamentary control to be exercised by means of the negative Resolution procedure. But the general tenor of the views expressed there was that the Government of the day should justify the maxima by moving an affirmative Resolution in each House. My right hon. Friend accepts and shares that view. It will give more flexibility than do the present somewhat rigid provisions of the Act.
The Bill thus provides in Clause 2 that the First Schedule to the Patents Act may be varied by Order in Council after an affirmative Resolution of both Houses. When the maxima have been fixed in that way, to the satisfaction of bath Houses, the actual fees chargeable will continue to be prescribed, as they are now, by rules Which are subject to negative Resolution in either House.
I hope that I have succeeded in explaining this somewhat abstruse little Bill and I commend it to the House.

7.21 p.m.

Sir Frank Soskice: The Bill has only three Clauses, but anybody acquainted with the proceedings of the House will know very well that the measure of intricacy of a Bill is in no sense to be regarded as correlative to its length, and when one sees that this is a Bill which deals with patents and designs one can well understand the fullness of the explanation which the Parliamentary Secretary gave us. I think that he very clearly explained what the Bill was designed to do, and I express my gratitude to him for doing that.
I myself would have no comment to offer about Clause 1. My only observation, hardly to be dignified as comment, is that I was somewhat embarrassed by the finding of this error which had eluded if not the vigilance then the negligence of the Solicitor-General of 1949 when the 1949 Act was passed. I am very glad that the Government have taken steps to put that error right, and I feel comforted to think of the many experts in whose company I find myself in having failed to detect the error to which the Parliamentary Secretary addressed himself.
However, I would like to say a little about Clause 2. The Government have made the Bill very much more satisfactory by acceding to an Amendment proposed in another place to the effect that the maxima to be charged in relation to patents should be subject to affirmative Resolution. The procedure theretofore envisaged a negative Resolution, which was not really satisfactory. Inventors generally can be said to be naturally fearful at the prospect of the removal of the Schedule to Section 99 of the 1949 Act, without some adequate safeguard in its place. The Government propose

as a safeguard that there should be a procedure by way of affirmative Resolution and so far I agree with the Government and think that the safeguard is not unsatisfactory in all the circumstances.
However, the change proposed in Clause 2 is justified by the Parliamentary Secretary on the ground that it is necessary to derive an increased revenue from patents, and, incidentally, from designs, because of the growing expenditure in the conduct of the Patent Office. No doubt when the affirmative Resolutions come before the House, in the event of there being an actual increase in the maxima proposed, the case will be very fully canvassed as to whether there is any need for the additional revenue which will be provided by the increased maxima. But at this stage, since the Government's justification is the increased expenditure of the Patent Office, I would like to put one or two questions.
First, does the hon. Gentleman think that it is wholly justified that the Patent Office should be regarded, as it were, as a self-paying unit? In other words, does he think it is justifiable to expect that, from some of the general revenues of the State, there should be some assistance in the running of the Patent Office, in view of the extremely important functions which it has to discharge nationally in according protection to patents? In other words, should not some tax revenue be used to make up the deficit in expenditure, if there is a deficit?
No doubt it is the case with the great majority of patents that it is the very large concerns whose scientific departments have thought out the inventions which give rise to the applications for patents, but over the years—and presumably it will be the case in the future—industry has been considerably enriched by inventions discovered by private people, often people of very limited means, who give their whole lives to the investigation of some aspects of industrial machinery and who at long last light upon some new and valuable invention.
Everybody knows how formidable is the task of such a private inventor if he wishes to turn his invention to account. The Parliamentary Secretary will agree that up to the time when the inventor files his complete specification and


patents his patent, he is in a very vulnerable position. He cannot disclose it. It is extremely difficult for him to assemble the finance necessary to exploit it without disclosing at any rate some of its function and he may easily lose it.
Generally speaking, those persons who are gifted with the power of invention are not people who are good in business negotiations. One has frequently come across people who have no understanding of business matters and who are possibly somewhat indifferent to the financial reward which may accrue to them as a result of their inventions. However, after years of close application to the study of some particular type of industrial machinery, such a person may have lighted upon something which, if turned to account, will benefit and enrich the economy of this and other countries, and it is right that he should be accorded some reasonable reward for the invention which he has encompassed.
That sort of person is often a lone operator and finds it extremely difficult to turn what is a mere idea in his mind into something which can be capable of practical operation in an economic sense. When I speak of the possibility that the Patent Office ought to be assisted out of the general revenue of the State, I have in mind very much the situation of that sort of person. He ought not to be unduly deterred by any unnecessary financial burden, which could be removed from his shoulders, when he seeks to turn to account the invention which he has discovered.
Secondly, does the Patent Office stand in need of further finance? The Parliamentary Secretary said that there was a deficit in the current year of some £132,000. I think that I caught him as saying that that deficit arose not merely from the operation of the patent department, but from the operation of the Register of Designs and so on. Can he say how much of that deficit is attributable to the patent department, as a patent department, if the patent operations are isolated?
Am I not right in supposing that the Government also intend to derive an additional income from the registration of designs? I have been told that the kind of figure which the Government have in mind as the additional income to accrue from designs is about £50,000.

I am told by an interested member of the public who was good enough to communicate with one of my colleagues that if one isolates patent operations the deficit is not £132,000, but much less, about £74,000.
Is it not further correct that for about 100 years, at any rate up to about 1952, with the exception of only one year when there was a loss, the Patent Office made an annual surplus which was sometimes quite substantial? My information is that from 1851 to 1952, with the exception of only one year, the Patent Office derived a surplus over expenditure from the fees it earned.
If that is right, what has happened to the surplus? I suppose it has gone to the general revenue of the State. If that is the position, cannot the Patent Office, or the State which stands behind it, afford, at any rate for a little longer, to carry some loss rather than put an additional burden on the lone operator who discovers an invention which he wishes to turn to account? As I said, when we see the actual additional burden to be put on the inventor, no doubt we can discuss in more detail exactly how much the Government may require in consideration of the affirmative Resolutions which will be put before the House.
This further question arises on the terms of the Bill. The Minister pointed out that the work entailed in the granting of a patent relates more particularly to the stage in which the complete specification is lodged and the patent granted. If I understood the Minister's argument correctly, which I think I did, it was that it was therefore not unreasonable that at that stage there should be an increase. I think it was said in another place—I do not think that the Minister said it—that the increased fee for the lodging of the complete specification was to be increased from its present maximum of £4 to a new maximum of £8. It does not follow that the maximum will be charged, but it is at that stage that the private inventor will find that he is carrying the heaviest burden.
I submit to the Minister that the Government are wrong in thinking that it is at that stage that the additional burden should be imposed. The patent runs for four years before it has to come


under the annual renewal process. As the Minister said, it goes on for a total life of sixteen years, and there is an ascending scale of fees chargeable on the annual renewal. If there is to be an increase, I would have thought that it could be related more directly to the later stages in the life of the patent when presumably the inventor was in a much more stable position because he had got it going. It will have been exploited by him, or by somebody on his behalf under his licence, and a revenue would be accruing to him out of which the renewal fees could be paid annually. It seems open to question whether it is right that at this initial stage, when the final specification is lodged, that the maximum should be increased from £4 to £8.
It may well be said that an increase of £4 is not a gigantic increase, but it is, after all, an accumulation of expense which the inventor has had to undergo, perhaps over a period of years when he has been working all out on exploring his idea, very often neglecting his other means of obtaining a livelihood, and also having to shoulder the expense of providing himself with the various implements he finds necessary to perfect the invention. At that stage any additional expenditure is something which matters. I ask the Minister why he thinks it is desirable to impose the additional expense at that stage.
Those are considerations which I urge on the House as being worthy of being taken into account at this stage. I cannot advise my right hon. and hon. Friend's to oppose the Bill. Obviously Clause 1 introduces useful and necessary changes, but I put a query against Clause 2. I can see that there is perhaps a case for substituting the affirmative Resolution procedure for the existing Statutory maxima, but when the Minister says that it will be very cumbersome to keep on having to increase the maxima by Statute, that conjures up fearsome pictures of endlessly ascending scales of fees. I hope that legislative intervention will be rare in any event, but the additional flexibility introduced by the procedure which the Government have chosen has perhaps something to be said for it. I would therefore not advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to oppose the Bill, but I think that those questions

need answers and I would be grateful for the answers in due course.

7.36 p.m.

Sir Lionel Heald: I will not delay the House for more than a few moments. I would not have risen but for the remarks of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) about the general management of the Patent Office. I respectfully agree with him that we have had an extremely clear and concise explanation of the Bill, and we are very grateful for that.
What I am concerned about is that my hon. Friend and his Department might be misled by the seductive and attractive argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman into perhaps taking rather hasty action with regard to the arrangement of the business of the Patent Office. The time may come when there is room for a considerable debate on that matter, but I am a little apprehensive about what the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggested about the conduct of the business of the Patent Office from the financial point of view.
I would have thought that there was rather a dangerous aspect of the right hon. and learned Gentleman saying, "Never mind. If a bit more money is needed just dip your hand into the pool and get on with it". I should have thought that there was a slight inconsistency about his argument. One would have thought that if for 100 years, apparently since the date of the Great Exhibition, it had been making a good thing out of patents, and one suddenly found a deficit of £132,000, which is not yet explained, one might have thought that there was some argument, not for doing the thing haphazardly, but for applying more business methods to it.
For instance, the ideas suggested with regard to the Post Office might be applied, but we are not in a position to discuss that this evening. I ask my hon. Friend to be a little cautious about this suggestion and perhaps tell us that sometime in the future we might have the opportunity to discuss the business of the Patent Office, rather than change the system at the present time.
As regards the fees paid by inventors, of course, one would be very anxious not to place any burden on them. But when


we appreciate this astonishing position it makes us think that the taking out of a patent and the matters connected with it must be about the only thing the cost of which has not increased enormously in recent times.
It is a very doubtful proposition that we should subsidise matters of this kind, especially when we are dealing with only very small figures. There it is. We must not dilate on these matters tonight, but I thought that I would give my hon. Friend a word of warning against the rather dangerous kind of argument that we have heard from the right hon. and learned Member for Newport.

7.40 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Bence: I, also, am worried about the sliding scale of charges and fees payable by persons wishing to register designs or patents. I am concerned mainly with mechanical devices. After a device has been patented it can sometimes lie unused for years. I remember one which was lying around for twenty-four years. The inventor made several new designs, all evolving from the first one, and even under the old scale of charges this became a very expensive process. The machine that I am thinking of is used all over the country today in its final style, and it is now made by a large engineering company. I also knew a mechanic in Newport who started an idea in about 1913 and kept in going as long as he could, but in the end the expense involved in renewing the patent was too much. His device is known even today, I believe, as a "Billy fairplay."
A mechanical engineer with an inventive mind may have an idea from which he evolves even better ideas. Although a mechanical idea may be very good it is often impossible to get it into manufacture for ten or fifteen years. The mere fact that it has been patented and registered does not automatically mean that there will be someone to manufacture it. I know of several cases in industry where, after new devices have been invented, it has been quite impossible, for various reasons, for manufacturers to use them in their processes of production. I remember that some years ago I and other tried our hardest to get in invention manufactured, but we could not do so. The young inventor

kept the patent going for about ten years, but after that he had to let it lapse. Now it is a common product on the market.
I do not say that this happens regularly, but it can happen if the scale of renewal fees is too high. An inventor may have three or four evolutions of his primary idea all developing at the same time. In four years he may have mechanically evolved his primary idea, and he then has to register his new idea. A series of processes can be built up in that way. All those engaged in engineering have seen this happen. A man may be pushing his idea for all he is worth, but it is very often almost impossible to get a manufacturer to take it up in its initial stages. Under the old scale of charges such a man could be involved in the payment of £40 or £50.
We must, therefore, be careful that we do not prevent the mechanical engineer with a creative and inventive genius from being able to develop his ideas from his basic design. Anyone who works in engineering knows that the first crude concept is often useless, and not acceptable to anybody, but by its development over the years it can eventually become a first-class device or product. We must not alter these scales and charges so as to make them too heavy for the individual who has to look for a market for four or five years. We do not want to rob that man of his opportunities. I hope that the Minister will consider that point. It is very important that we should be sure that we are not penalising progressive inventiveness.

7.46 p.m.

Mr. N. Macpherson: With the leave of the House, I should like to reply to the debate. I was grateful for the way in which the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) received the Bill. I was glad that he agreed that the Bill has been improved by altering the procedure laid down under it from the negative to the affirmative Resolution, in the fixing of maxima for the fees. The right hon. and learned Gentleman queried the proposition that it was desirable to obtain increased revenue, and he asked whether the Patent Office should be regarded as a self-paying unit. He wondered whether it would not be better to subsidise the Patent Office in some way. My


right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) advised me to be careful of these seductive arguments.
I want to say a little about the trend of expenditure. In reply to a Question from the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu), I set out the full trend. Generally speaking, until 1939 there probably was a surplus in most years. Latterly, however, there has not been a surplus, even deducting expenditure on the library, the industrial property department and in connection with other miscellaneous items. The figures of deficit have been rising in recent years, owing to increased expenditure and the greater number of examiners employed—and we need still more if we are to keep up with the registrations now being made. The position is better than it has been for some time, but we still need more examiners.
For these reasons it is likely that we will continue to run a deficit, and we believe that we ought to cover it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked why we should do so. One reason is that it has always been policy to do so. Another is that most other countries make it a policy to cover deficit expenditure. This philosophy has an exception in the United States, where the payment of a fairly high initial fee results in the grant of a patent. No renewal fees are payable. But in the world as a whole the expenses of the patent offices are covered by the fees payable.
There is, I think, a reasonable argument for that. After all, those who make application for patents are getting a very valuable protection and it is not unreasonable for them to have to pay for that protection. I believe the amount they now have to pay, in terms of costs in 1884 when the application fee was first fixed, is 4s. 6d., which seems an extraordinarily modest application fee.
The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) dealt with the cost of renewal fees. In my opening speech I argued that it was desirable to keep down the cost of the initial fees. There is a good reason for this. The number of small independent inventors is relatively few, I understand that it is certainly not more than 10 per cent. of all registrations. In the initial period between the

application for the patent and the lodging of complete specifications, which is a year, they can approach other firms to take up the patent. If another firm is licensed for that patent, it will be the firm which will be paying for the protection. So this is not likely to be any great burden on the small inventor.
Where the small inventor has to pay the initial fee of £1, I think it an extremely modest fee. Where he has to go on and develop the product himself, a fee of £4 for the complete specification is extremely small in relation to his other expenditure, and even were it doubled, it would remain an extremely small percentage of the amount he would have to spend to develop his invention himself. He may sell it. He may make arrangements with a firm to develop it. But if he proposes to develop it himself this represents a very small percentage indeed, and as I say, it represents a very important protection to him.
One of the reasons why we wish to have a growing fee for renewal each year up to a maximum of £20 in the sixteenth year is we wish to urge inventors to develop and market patents, and the higher the renewal fee the greater is the incentive to find somebody to develop the patent. It is not generally desirable that anybody should register a patent merely in order not to develop it, and under the present law it is possible for someone else to apply for a compulsory licence so that the patent shall not lie unused. I do not think there is a strong case for reducing or for not increasing the renewal fees. Some of these renewal fees are already at their maximum and I think it highly desirable that they should be increased.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked how much of the increased fees are attributable to the patent department. Broadly speaking, the deficit in the patent department out of the £132,000 is £74,000. The deficit on the trademark section is £38,000, leaving £20,000 on the design section. It is proposed to make increases in the charges for application for a trademark application such as to yield about £46,000 in the year. At present, there is a committee considering the design section which is barely covering half its cost, and when we receive the report of this committee we shall consider whether


it will be appropriate to increase the fees for designs also.
On the question of patents, one has to remember that it is not only the patents of inventors in this country which cost the Patent Office money. Most of the cost involved comes from examining whether or not an invention is new. That has to be done when a patent which comes from abroad is registered as well as from this country. Each patent is fully examined whether it comes from abroad or whether it originates here, and rather more than half of the total registrations come from abroad. So, were we subsiding the Patent Office, we should be subsiding foreign as well as British inventors.
As to whether Clause 2 should stand, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that he did not object to increases in the renewal fees, and I would merely observe that were we to cut out Clause 2 altogether, there would be no means of increasing the renewal fees beyond the existing maxima provided for in the 1949 Act, and some of them are already hard up against this maxima. I hope that I have answered all the questions, and for all these reasons I hope that the House will be prepared now to give the Bill a Second Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House—[Mr. Peel.]

Committee Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the International Atomic Energy Agency (Immunities and Privileges) Order, 1960, be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 28th November.—[Mr. Godber.]

7.58 p.m.

Sir Frank Soskice: The Minister has formally moved the Order. I entirely accept the necessity of this type of Order. Once we are committed, as a matter of general policy, to closer co-operation with other countries, and once the logic of history makes such a general trend in our policy absolutely inevitable, so must we, quite obviously, accept what are the consequences of that closer co-operation. At the same time, I do not think that we should pass these Orders purely formally without spending a very short time considering in the case of each of them where they are leading us.
This is an Order under the 1950 Act, and, in so far as I can judge, in common form. It seems to give the type of immunities which we have given to a number of similar international organisasations over the last few years, particularly since the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges) Act, 1950 was passed. I should like to ask the Minister whether he can tell us, in very general terms how many of these Orders have been laid.
To give the Minister time to derive the information from the appropriate quarter, I will continue by saying that the effect of each of them is, after all, to place a certain number of individuals and organisations—individuals resident in this country and organisations the headquarters or the branches of which are situated in this country—above the law. I do not want to rehearse the somewhat trite questions which are frequently put about driving motor cars in the streets of the cities of this country without having to encounter the normal consequences which ensue as a result of negligence in the case of ordinary British citizens. Nevertheless, we have to recognise that the effect of these Orders is to place a growing number of persons above the law and to give to them privileges in the face of the law not accorded to ordinary British citizens.
As I said at the outset, I quite accept that this is inevitable, necessary and indeed useful. It is an incident in the closer activity which binds us with other countries, not only in the continent of Europe, but in many other continents. The Minister should give us a little more information on these lines so that we can see in general terms how many people can move about the streets of our great cities and say to themselves—with a feeling, no doubt, of greater or less satisfaction—that accidents which may occur in a legal sense to others cannot occur to them because they are invested with an immunity which accrues to them because they are the members of these organisations.
I should like the hon. Gentleman to satisfy me on these points, but I say in advance that, unless his answer is quite surprising, I should advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to offer no opposition to this Order.

8.2 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Bell: I feel the same anxieties as have been expressed by the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice). I remember the passing of this enabling Act in 1950. As soon as it was through we had a proliferation of these Orders which have never ceased.
I remember when an Order of this character, introducing immunities and privileges for the Universal Postal Union, was introduced into the House in July, 1960. At that time, the right hon. and learned Member was a member of the Government, for the party opposite was in power. We had a very much better attended debate than this. We as an Opposition were more zealous in our defence of the liberty of the subject than is Her Majesty's present Opposition. We had a long debate about it and the Motion was then passed.

Sir F. Soskice: Would the hon. Member be so good as to comment on the attendance on the Government side of the House as well as the attendance of the Opposition?

Mr. Ronald Bell: Like a good soldier. I never look behind. What I see in front does not encourage me.
That Motion was passed and it went to another place where the same anxieties about this spread were expressed. I dare say that the right hon. and learned Member will remember the strange outcome on that occasion. The noble Lord, Lord Jowitt, who was then on the Woolsack, associated himself with just the sort of anxieties which the right hon. and learned Member has expressed this evening, and the Motion was withdrawn in another place.
When we came back in October after the Summer Recess, we had the extraordinary experience of a Motion being introduced to cancel the Motion which we had passed in July approving one of these orders. At that time, the events I have just described were merely indicative of the widespread anxiety which was felt as a result of the series of Orders coming out consequent upon the passing of the Act of 1950.
Those anxieties were shared equally on both sides of the House, by ourselves of the Conservative Party, then in opposition, and by the party opposite, then in power. I look back to that happening, because I am appalled at the way in which these things keep slipping through late at night, with no one any longer bothering very much. What happened after that row was that time was given for the whole thing to die down. Now the Orders are coming out again.
If I may turn to the two Orders before us this evening—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Order. We are dealing with only one Order at the moment.

Mr. Ronald Bell: The point I was about to make, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, is, in fact, common to both Orders, so I think that I might inadvertently have been in order. I believe that we are dealing with the Customs Co-operation Council Order—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No, the International Atomic Agency Order.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Unfortunately, this point is common to both Orders and is now becoming general. It is the immunity given in respect of experts. We used to have immunity in respect of


officers of the body which was being given these privileges. In Part II of the Order, immunity is given to representatives. Part III goes a stage further and gives immunity to officers, that is, the executive people of the organisation as distinct from the controlling body. Now we are going further, for Part IV gives immunity to persons on missions, which means the experts employed by the Agency.
This is getting a little too much. I do not doubt that it is authorised by the Act, but this wide immunity is not just as to papers and archives, which may be necessary. I can quite see that the documents should be immune, but the general immunity from detention and arrest—and, in broad terms, from giving an account of themselves—is now to be for people who are not members of the body at all, but are merely employed as experts, perhaps members of committees or sub-committees of experts set up by the body. That is carrying diplomatic immunity to a quite preposterous length.
I appreciate that we have only one Order before us, but perhaps it will be in order for me to say that I should not mind it quite so much if it appeared only once in one single Order. I find it appearing now rather as a matter of course and I do not think that this Order should pass without the attention of the House being drawn to the gradual extension of the area over which this privilege is enjoyed, as well as to the multiplication of the bodies which enjoy it.

8.8 p.m.

Mr. Roy Mason: It is not my intention unduly to delay the passing of this Order, but I share the concern of the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) particularly regarding the immunities and privileges which are to be passed on to the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Of course, I am not against the Agency, but very much for it. I am pleased to see that we are getting international co-operation on the problem of the peaceful uses of atomic energy, but as the hon. Member said, this Order stretches immunity to a very wide field of officers, representatives and persons

on missions, and possibly also to some families. Cmnd. 1176, which governs this Order, gives an indication in Section 20 that the Director-General of the Agency, his wife and children shall also be granted immunity and privileges. It goes on to say that anyone acting on his behalf and that person's wife and family have immunity.
Later, it is rather hazy and it would be enlightening if the Joint Under-Secretary could tell us how many members of the Agency other than the Director-General and perhaps someone acting on his behalf in this country might have the same privileges and immunities for their wives and families.
I feel some concern about this, and I should like to know whether we have an initial list. Has the International Atomic Energy Agency put forward to the Government an initial list of the people who will require immunity? How many countries are members of the Agency? How big will the list be? The House ought to be told how many people will receive these special privileges before the Order is passed.
Secondly, I draw the Minister's attention to Article III, Sections 3 and 4, of the Agreement contained in Cmnd. 1176. The Sections refer to the property and assets of the agency which are also to be the subject of special immunity. This perturbs me, and I want to know what we mean by "property". We have passed a number of Bills to ensure that we have very stringent precautions in the transport of radioactive materials and substances in this country. The position may arise, when the International Atomic Energy Agency set up its department here, in which representatives assist or are even in charge of the transport of radioactive materials within this country.
This is an international body, and a lot of material will be moved in and out of the country, particularly for experiments. We ought to know to what extent a person in charge of the transport of radioactive materials or substances or isotopes is not to be interfered with if we think that the safety precautions being used in that transport do not equal those which we require of our own Atomic Energy Authority and Central Electricity Generating Board.
The hon. Member will see that Article III, Section 4, refers to the premises, and that these are to be
immune from search, requisition, confiscation, expropriation and any other form of interference, whether by executive, administrative, judicial or legislative action.
These are very strong words to be written into an Agreement to be approved by the House. How privileged will these premises be? As the International Atomic Energy Agency grows, it is likely that the United Kingdom may be a testing ground for some nuclear experiments and, especially following the accident at Windscale, after which special committees were set up to introduce regulations governing safety within these premises and the health of the employees there, we ought to be sure that the Agency will not escape the stringent precautions which we have established in this country.
Can the hon. Gentleman assure us that where the Government or the Atomic Energy Authority think that the precautions taken within establishments developed by the International Atomic Energy Agency, as it grows in this country, are not as stringent as our precautions, we shall have power to step in and raise those safety standards? Or can he give an assurance that the safety standards and the precautions to be taken when transporting radioactive materials in this country will always be as high as those which we have asked the Atomic Energy Authority and the Central Electricity Generating Board to maintain?

8.14 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. J. B. Godber): May I reply to the debate, with the leave of the House? I did not wish to show any discourtesy when I moved the Motion formally, but I thought it would be more helpful, if hon. Members wished to intervene, that I should first know the point with which they wished me to deal. I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice), and his hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, (Mr. Mason) and my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) for their comments. I hope that I can allay their fears a good deal about this Order.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked me how many such Orders have

been made. I have not the exact figure, but I am told that since the passing of the Act there have been between 15 and 20 Orders. It is difficult to give the number of people to whom they applied because this varies very much with different Orders, but the number of people to whom this Order will apply will be very small indeed. The headquarters of this Agency is in Vienna, and it has no resident staff in the United Kingdom. It is, however, probable that some officials entitled to immunity will occasionally come to this country on visits. It is not expected that any conferences will be held here, but, if they were, the representatives and their staffs attending the conference would be entitled to immunuity.
Those are all the people likely to be affected, except for the persons on missions. The likelihood is that there will be very few, if any, persons on missions in this country, because this organisation will deal largely with safeguards set down by itself in relation to such matters as equipment and enriched fuel which are supplied to agencies of the organisation in different countries. Their staff will be responsible for seeing that the appropriate safeguards are enforced in those countries. As it happens, we are more likely to be supplying other countries than to be receiving; we might receive in certain circumstances, but they would be very remote.
The reason for introducing the Order is that we felt that we had to accede to the normal requirements of the organisation; we are members of it and have pledged ourselves fully to support it, and it would have looked very odd if we had not done so. A few officials may occasionally visit this country for discussions, but it is unlikely that any of the problems will arise which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Barnsley, because we are a supplying country rather than a receiving country. I think that I can give him fair assurances on the points which he raised. I do not think that the points which he made on Sections 3 and 4 of Article III will apply to any extent in this country. The Agency's properties and assets will not include any atomic materials in this country; I give him that assurance.
I know the zeal of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South in watching these matters, and I understand


the point which he has made and the feeling which he has expressed. It is right that the House should watch very carefully any extensions of diplomatic immunity, but I hope that what I have said about the number concerned in this Order will assure him that, like the housemaid's baby, it is very small indeed. I know that that is cold comfort to him, with his legal approach to the matter. I cannot explain the second Order at this stage, but I have an equally satisfactory answer when that Order is discussed.
It would have been wrong for us not to accede to the normal requirements of privileges and immunities for this body, as for others, because we wish to see it established as an important body safeguarding these problems in the use of atomic energy. We want to strengthen its position as much as possible. It is more for that reason than any other that we have introduced the Order. It will apply to a very few people, and its application will be fairly remote. I hope that, with that explanation, the House will accept the Order.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the International Atomic Energy Agency (Immunities and Privileges) Order, 1960, be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 28th November.

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

8.20 p.m.

Mr. Godber: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Customs Co-operation Council (Immunities and Privileges) Order, 1960, be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 28th November.
Perhaps I may deal with the points raised in relation to this Order by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell). As regards the experts to which he referred, the officers, this Order merely replaces a very similar Order laid in 1954. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend spoke with some strength and vigour against that Order too. This Order merely makes a few drafting Amendments, in the main, to the Order laid in 1954 and it does not extend privileges at all. It merely brings this particular Instrument into line with

the general run of these Instruments dealing with international immunities and privileges. It is not an extension but an amending Order.
In addition to the purely verbal Amendments which have been made, the Order now contains a description of the categories of officers enjoying privileges under Article 10. The corresponding Article of the 1954 Order, which was, I think, Article 12, did not include this. It is common form, and we have brought it in in this way.
The council, which has headquarters at Brussels, employs about 30 persons on its international staff, seven of whom are United Kingdom nationals. Out of this small number, no more than half a dozen would be likely to attend in the event of a meeting of the Council or of any of its committees taking place in the United Kingdom. No meeting of this kind has taken place here yet, nor, so far as can be foreseen, will it ever do so. I hope, therefore, that the House will find no difficulty in approving this Order which, as I say, extends immunities not at all. It merely brings the matter into line.

8.22 p.m.

Sir Frank Soskice: I believe that some Legislatures have a very convenient system whereby members of the Legislature may, as it were, file their speeches without actually delivering them. At this juncture, it would certainly be convenient to me and, I imagine, to the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason), if we could do that and if the Minister, equally, could file the reply he gave on the occasion of our last debate.
What the Minister said about this Order being really so innocuous and ineffective made me suspect it. I always suspect enactments which are said to be for drafting purposes. It is a description which is extremely convenient when we do not quite know what they do, and it makes one suspect that they do something which might be rather difficult to explain. Far be it from me to impute such an intention to the Minister. I am quite sure that if this Order did, in fact, do something he would tell us at once. In effect the hon. Gentleman has told us that it does nothing.
Can the hon. Gentleman tell us what are the drafting Amendments? He said that the present Order does embody a description of officers which was lacking in the previous Order. The other drafting Amendments, I gather, are purely verbal, but, of course, words may have great effect in this imperfect world. A word can start a war and a word can make peace. Simply to say that the Amendments are verbal does not, at any rate to my mind, import quite the reassurance which I should like to have.
I point to the fact, to which the hon. Gentleman himself adverted, that there was, apparently, a perfectly good Order made in 1954. It has weathered the storms until 1960. Now, at long last, apparently, it has tottered and it is beginning to fall; it needs replacement. I am sure the Minister will recognise the justice of what I say. I hope that he will tell us in a few words, if the House gives him leave to speak again, why the old Order is to be replaced. What, broadly speaking, are the drafting changes that are being made?
The word "drafting" is one which I used very often when I occupied a place on the bench on which the Minister now sits, and I am very suspicious about it. If he will give us a general idea of why it is necessary to replace the old with the new, I, speaking for myself, would feel considerably reassured. I hope that he will do that. I say in advance that, unless his answer contains some feature which wholly startles me, I can see very little reason for opposing this Order, as I could see very little reason for opposing the last.

8.24 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Bell: I am not in the same position as the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice), whose conscience makes him suspicious of much that my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State has said. But I am bound to agree that the expression "verbal amendments" does not bring much reassurance to any of the despised tribe of lawyers, because we all know that all amendments are verbal and some verbal amendments can be very important and significant indeed. Therefore, although this debate does have some of the character of chasing the Minister

round the Dispatch Box, I think that we must ask him to tell us a little more about the amendments.
My hon. Friend has said that the material change in this Order from the 1954 Order is that it describes the categories of officers who might benefit from the immunities and privileges. Should I be unduly suspicious if I hazarded the guess that it enlarges the categories of officers who may benefit? Will my hon. Friend help me about that? I know I have a suspicious mind, but I am inclined to think, when a 1954 Order is replaced by a 1960 Order and there are changes of definition, that the 1960 definitions are quite likely to be wider than the 1954 definitions.
Perhaps my hon. Friend will confirm the impression, which his speech left on my mind, that the experts were included in the 1954 Order. I do not know whether that is so or not, but I received the impression from him that it is. If they were not, then, of course, I should want to look at the Order very carefully indeed.
I am sorry that, by continuing to speak, I am distracting my hon. Friend's attention from the points he must be trying to elucidate in order to answer the right hon. and learned Gentleman and myself.
Generally, although I plead guilty to having missed the 1954 Order and not opposed it, as I ought to have done, I do not in any way feel estopped thereby from saying now what, perhaps, I should have said then. I cannot understand why a Customs Co-operation Council cannot do its work of co-operating about Customs duties without enjoying diplomatic immunity for its members, its servants and its experts.
I should have thought that this was one of those rather mild and peaceful occupations which, though no doubt controversial, do not partake of the nature of an International Atomic Energy Agency. It is not one of those matters in which there could be secrecy or high political considerations. Why cannot people get together to discuss Customs arrangements without having the paraphernalia of immunity from the ordinary law which this Order provides?
I should not be a bit surprised if the Universal Postal Union to which I referred in my speech on the previous


Order has now been accorded just this immunity which Parliament refused to it in 1950 precisely on the ground that people really ought to be able to talk about postal arrangements without having diplomatic immunity. I feel the same about these Customs arrangements. One does not want to refuse reasonable facilities to people, and I personally would never feel very reluctant to give complete immunity to the documents of any international body coming here to negotiate.
But I do not see why there should be this total and absolute exemption from all the processes, criminal and civil, of the law in respect of their property and everything else. It seems to me to be taking a sledge hammer to crack a nut. The exemptions are far too ample for this class of organisation. I know that the Order has been in existence since 1954, but I do not think that it should have been. Now that it is being renewed, I take this opportunity of reiterating my objections to this extension of diplomatic privilege to bodies which are not apt to enjoy it.

8.32 p.m.

Mr. Godber: If I may, by leave of the House, speak again, may I say I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) and my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell), for their comments on this Order. I assure them that I am not seeking, as it were, to pull a fast one over them in any way. I note that my hon. Friend returned to the main theme, and I can quite understand his views. As I pointed out, we are not seeking to extend immunities in this Order in any way.
Both the right hon. and learned Gentleman and my hon. Friend asked me to specify more precisely what the amendments are, why they are being made and to say why it was necessary to bring in this Order at all. The reason why we have brought in a fresh Order is that there has been criticism by the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, which criticised a similar Article to that to which I referred—Article 12 of the old Order—in the draft Council of Europe Order, 1957. It was because of the criticisms made by the Select Committee

on Statutory Instruments that we are seeking to bring this into line with these other Orders which have now been made.
The particular amendment, and I think the only one of substance, which appears in the present Order as Article 10, relates to other officials of the Council, who appeared in the previous Order in Article 12 and who were specified. The Order provided:
Except in so far as in any particular case any privilege or immunity is waived by the Secretary General or the Council, all officials of the Council of any category specified by the Council shall enjoy:—
It then set out in paragraphs (a) and (b) the immunities which they enjoy. In the previous case, it provides:
Except in so far as any immunity or privilege is waived by the Secretary-General, officers of the Council of all categories other than those specified in Article 9 of this Order shall enjoy"—
and it then sets out the particular provisions. In that case it says all the categories other than those specified in Article 9. In the present one, it is all officials of the Council or any of the categories specified by the Council. I am reading the wrong Order; it is the 1960 Order which says "all categories other than those specified." The 1954 Order says "all officials of the Council of any category specified by the Council."

Mr. Ronald Bell: Is my hon. Friend quoting from Article 12?

Mr. Godber: No, from Article 10 in the new Order, or Article 12 in the old Order. I apologise. All these particular individuals are in any case specified in the list which is provided, and it is the same individuals who are concerned. It is merely a change in the method of description and it is no extension whatever. The reason why it happens to be Article 10 where in the old Order it is Article 12, is that we have telescoped Articles 9 and 10 of the old Order into Article 9, which embraces both the Secretary-General and the Deputy Secretary-General, who had a separate Article each before. This is what I referred to when I was talking about small verbal amendments.
I do not pretend to any legal knowledge myself, but I am assured that we are making no other extensions of any kind in this Order, and it is solely because of the criticism of the form of


the Article in the other Order by the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments that we have made the alteration which we have made.
I hope that that goes some way to meeting the doubts of both the right hon. and learned Gentleman and my hon. Friend. If there are any other points which they would like clarified perhaps it would be safer for me to undertake to answer them in writing, because I do not claim to be an expert in legal draftsmanship.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Customs Co-operation Council (Immunities and Privileges) Order, 1960, be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 28th November.

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

Orders of the Day — SUMMER TIME

8.36 p.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Dennis Vosper): I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, in pursuance of the provisions of Section 2 of the Summer Time Act, 1947, praying that the Summer Time Order, 1960, be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 30th November.
Perhaps it would be convenient to the House if I explained briefly the circumstances under which this Order comes to be laid. Summer Time is at present governed by the Summer Time Act, 1922, as amended by the Summer Time Act, 1925. Under that Act, Summer Time at present runs from the Sunday after the third Saturday in April until the Sunday after the first Saturday in October. An exception to that is when Easter falls on that Sunday in April, and on that occasion Summer Time starts a week earlier.
The House will recollect that during the last war Summer Time existed for the whole year and that there was, in fact, a period of double Summer Time. It will also recollect that in 1947 the House approved an Act which had the effect of providing for Summer Time from 16th March to 2nd November and also for a period of double Summer Time. That Act was introduced on account of the fuel crisis and it was used until the year 1952, when the use of the Act lapsed. However, the 1947 Act made provision, for the first time, for Summer Time to be changed by Order in Council. The Order before the House tonight is, in fact, laid under that Act.
In more recent years, public opinion has expressed itself in favour of an extension of Summer Time—in the Press, in the House during last Session, and in letters to the Home Office. I think that that expression of opinion has come partly from the tourist industry, to a great extent, I think, from those interested in recreation and sport, and to a more limited extent from those engaged in industry and commerce. On account of this expression of public opinion the Government sent a questionnaire in the autumn of 1959 to all the organisations thought to be interested in this question. In fact, 178 organisations were consulted, of which only 16 have failed to reply.
The replies were, as I once said in answer to a Question, much of a mixed bag, but, quite clearly, they indicated two particular preferences—first, that there should be Summer Time all the year round and, secondly, that there should be an extension of Summer Time in the spring and autumn. Numerically, there was a preference for the first choice, but, on analysis, it seemed that there were many advantages in extending Summer Time in the spring and autumn which would meet the wishes of those who wanted Summer Time all the year round without, at the same time, giving effect to the disadvantages which arise from having Summer Time all the year round.
The Government have, therefore, decided that for the year 1961 they would favour the second choice, namely, an extension in the spring and autumn of three weeks each, a total extension of six weeks' Summer Time. Therefore, under the Order Summer Time for 1961 will begin on 26th March and end on 29th October—that is to say, it will start three weeks' earlier than it would have done and will end three weeks' later. Since this announcement was made in answer to a Question in the House, there has been very little reaction in the House, in the Press or in letters. My right hon. Friend rather assumes that that is because this extension commends itself to the public. I hope that that will be the view of the House in endorsing this Order.
For the future, this Order applies only to the year 1961, and, therefore, a fresh Order will have to be laid for another year. What we have in mind is to ascertain even further the reaction to this experiment during 1961 and then either to relay the Order for 1962 or, as might be the case, to enact it in some more permanent form. It may well be that the public, having tasted this extension, may wish the further extension of Summer Time all the year round. That does not arise tonight. The Order is simply in respect of 1961 and it provides for a six weeks' extension in that year. I commend it to the House.

8.41 p.m.

Sir Frank Soskice: I want to intervene very shortly in reply to what the Minister of State, Home Department,

has said. Over the years, there have been differences of opinion with regard to the advantages and disadvantages of Summer Time. We now no longer have Double Summer Time. What the Order does is to extend for about two or three weeks at each end the period during which Summer Time exists. That seems to me at least to be useful, and I see no objection to it.
The Minister, however, said that the Government had, quite rightly, taken the precaution of ascertaining the opinion of a large number of organisations, and he mentioned some 178, of which all except 16 have replied. Whilst I see no objection to the Order, before I at least will be prepared formally to agree to its passing, I should like from the right hon. Gentleman an indication of the points of view expressed and what were the advantages and disadvantages of the proposal canvassed on either side among the expressions of conflicting opinion. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to give an indication of the proportion of opinion which was in favour of the extension of Summer Time which the Government now propose.
The Minister said that the Government have not excluded from their minds the possibility of having Summer Time right throughout the year. I do not know how that would affect angricultural interests, schoolchildren or workers in factories. I should like an indication of the consideration which the Government have given to this matter. As I say, I am not myself aware of any fundamental objection to this modest Order which would lead me to think that it was necessary to register opposition to it in this debate. Before finally deciding, however, I should be grateful if the Minister could expand his opening speech a little, providing that the House gives him permission to speak again.

8.43 p.m.

Mr. Ray Mawby: I do not want to take up many minutes, but I wish to put a point of view which, probably, most hon. Members will regard as heresy. I believe that the whole question of Summer Time has been brought about because most of us are mesmerised into the belief that Summer Time helps. It is extremely difficult to convince animals and young people of the necessity for changing the times. In particular, dairy farmers and mothers of


small children have extreme difficulty twice a year in carrying out what is required of them by messing about with the clock.
The suggestion made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State of Summer Time all the year round would at least solve the problem of the changes of the clock which that type of person cannot understand and to which he takes a long time to adapt himself. Incidentally, if we get to the stage of having Summer Time all the year round, this means that we depart from Greenwich Mean Time, by which the world takes its time from us. If we give the impression that we are no longer interested in keeping to Greenwich Mean Time, this might have certain results.
If this proposal is for only one year—1961—there is no reason why we should not make the experiment. However, I would urge, first, that we should seriously consider cutting Summer Time out altogether, because in agriculture, I believe, it makes no difference at all. The dew still has to dry off the crops before a farmer can start harvesting. Some people say that Summer Time makes a difference, but I believe that, on balance, it makes no difference at all. If we cannot cut Summer Time out altogether and have Greenwich Mean Time stabile all the year round, I think that the second best thing is to have Summer Time all the year round.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. A. E. Hunter: I am very pleased to give this Order my support. I have before in the House pressed the right hon. Gentleman on this extension of Summer Time. He has always been very courteous in his replies. We have waited a long while for this modest Order, but it has come at last. It is being discussed in a far from full House, and it may not seem very important, but I believe that it is important to millions of people. I wish that the extension were longer, but I think that this extra six weeks of Summer Time, three weeks in the early spring and three in the early autumn, will give enormous pleasure to the people.
It will give pleasure to the gardener. It will mean that he can come home from work in the office or factory and can still dig his garden and indulge in

his hobby there, and that will give him joy. It will give pleasure to the young people who play tennis in the spring, or football in the autumn, and those who train for other sports will have the advantage of the extra hour of daylight in the evening.
I think that it will also give pleasure to the holiday makers. After all, holidays now extend into October. It must be a bitter disappointment to those who have to take their holidays late, should they get a sunny day, suddenly to find that it is cut short by the putting back of the clock. This has been a bad autumn, but there are autumns when there are sunny days. It is very disappointing to people on holiday to find that it is getting dark at 6 p.m. because of the alteration of the clock. This extra three weeks into October will mean a great deal to those who have to take their holidays late, such as railwaymen, policemen and Post Office workers, who cannot always take their holidays during the summer months.
It will mean a great deal not only to them, but also to the hotel industry. Whether they keep hotels, boarding houses or hostels, this extra three weeks on to their season will be of benefit to them in making their business pay. That is another reason why we should welcome this Order.
There is another point, which I have put to the right hon. Gentleman before. I think that this Order will help in cutting down the number of road casualties. That is why I should like to see Summer Time extended beyond October, for I think that, if we get that extra hour of daylight, so that people leaving their factories, whether by motor car or bicycle, are able to go home in daylight instead of in the dark, and equally, of course, people who travel by bus, and the bus drivers, have the extra daylight, it should prove a big factor in reducing the number of road accidents and deaths. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will get from the Minister of Transport figures of road accidents during the two periods, the three weeks in the spring and the three weeks in the autumn, next year, so that we may see whether this Order contributes to reducing the number of road accidents and deaths at those times. If it does help to reduce them, then, on that ground alone the Order will be welcomed.
I have heard it said in the House, though not tonight, and definitely by the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby), that the agricultural industry is opposed to this Order. When I raised the matter, I think about three years ago, and that point of view was put forward, I had letters from farmers in many parts of the country saying that the extra hour of daylight in the evening in October was not a hindrance, but a great help.
If the opinion of those who are engaged in agriculture were sought, I do not think that it would be found that there was any definite opposition to this proposal in all parts of the country. This extra hour of daylight in the evenings will enable millions of people to go home from work in the light instead of the dark in October. It will also be of great benefit to thousands of people who enjoy tennis, football, cricket and other sports. I am pleased to give the Order my support.

8.51 p.m.

Mr. Raymond Gower: I was very much hurt by the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby). He even advocated the possibility of the abolition of Summer Time. I was equally anxious about the suggestion made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, that there might be a possibility of making this arrangement permanent throughout the year. I would object strongly to either proposal. The Order is admirable as it stands. The hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Hunter) said that this was a trivial matter.

Mr. Hunter: No, I said that it might seem a small matter to many people.

Mr. Gower: I think that it is a tremendous matter. When Summer Time starts it is the beginning to me of the most wonderful thing in the world—the British summer. I begin to look forward to long days of sunshine. Every year I have this hope. My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes would deprive me of the hope by abolishing Summer Time altogether, and my right hon. Friend would deprive me of it possibly by making Summer Time permanent.
Seriously, I hope that we shall retain this arrangement. It is the beginning of something in the hopes of many of us

every year. We begin to think of lovely days spent in watching cricket and playing tennis and we do not think of the rain that will fall and of our having to shelter under the trees. Only those who lack imagination could think of either abolishing Summer Time or making it permanent.

Mr. Denys Bullard (King's Lynn): Can my hon. Friend tell me what is his reaction when the clock is altered in the autumn?

Mr. Gower: I am prepared to endure the unhappiness of seeing the signal for winter, provided that I have the happiness of seeing the signal for spring and summer. The advantage of the Order is that it brings the date of my yearly hopes earlier. My illusions will be apparent earlier each year.

Mr. Roderic Bowen: Why not in January?

Mr. Gower: No, this is the proper date. In January the whole thing would be impossible. In March one might feel that the illusion is real, and again in the autumn the evil day is postponed by this Order. I appreciate the views of those to whom the dark early morning is a hardship. I should like my right hon. Friend to say, as he has been asked by the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Sockice), what is the latest opinion expressed, for example, by farmers. Have they modified what earlier was in many cases their opposition to the extension of Summer Time? What reaction has my right hon. Friend found among those who deliver goods such as milk in the early mornings, and what has been the reaction from organisations connected with education? These are pertinent questions, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to elaborate in the way suggested by the right hon. and learned Member.
While I appreciate the views of those who have objections to what is proposed, I think that on balance, as the hon. Member for Feltham suggested, Summer Time has given a tremendous amount of pleasure to the great majority of the people of the country, and it has served and been tried by experience. As it has been tried by experience. I think we are doing the right thing now in proposing to extend it in this way.

8.55 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Bell: After the very personal confessions of my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower), I hate to think that I shall hurt him again. I am at least glad that he did not respond to the invitation of my hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bullard) to tell us what his mind turns to in the autumn. We have heard what his fancy turns to in the spring.
I am sorry to say that I can give only a very qualified welcome to the Order. I should like to start by expressing my horror at the suggested possibility that we might have Summer Time all the year round. I hope that the Minister will not attach too much weight to the expressions of opinion of some organisations about this. There is an extraordinarily widespread belief, which appeared throughout the speeches of the hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Hunter) and my hon. Friend the Member for Barry, that this Summer Time Order brings extra daylight.

Mr. Gower: I did not suggest that.

Mr. Bell: The hon. Member for Feltham referred constantly to the extra 60 minutes of sunshine which my right hon. Friend was bringing to the people. My hon. Friend the Member for Barry spoke of the rapture which stirs in his soul, hitherto in April but now it will be in March, at the thought of the long days of sunshine lying ahead which are the product of the Order.

Mr. Gower: I do not think that either the hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Hunter) or I suggested that the Order created an extra hour of daylight. What we say—and it is a fairly obvious fact—is that for large numbers of people they make the hours of daylight available at a time when they can use them for recreation.

Mr. Bell: Perhaps I might just point out to my hon. Friend what is also perhaps a fairly obvious fact, that the daylight is there and can be used by anyone who chooses to use it. If one adopts the quite absurd suggestion of making Summer Time last all through the year, all that one is really doing is making noontide one o'clock, and every other alteration is, in effect, done in precisely the same way. This really is

the most idiotic and farcical operation that one could imagine. The fact that we should seriously be discussing it in this ancient British Parliament appals me.

Mr. Gower: But my hon. Friend is doing so.

Mr. Bell: I have to, because it is the subject before the House. All that my hon. Friend the Member for Gower has to do if he wants to enjoy the daylight is to get up one hour earlier. When the clock is advanced an hour under this Order, that is precisely what he does.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: And everybody else does it as well.

Mr. Bell: Exactly.
Before we had Summer Time, which was an expedient adopted during the First World War, we still had people getting up an hour earlier and the hours of work beginning an hour earlier in the summer than in the winter. There is introduced every year, quite independently of this arrangement, the railway summer timetable, and that is the opportunity and the method by which we can introduce, in the absence of this arrangement, a device for an hour earlier starting when summer comes. To my mind, this is a more logical point of view.
However, if there is this tremendous and widespread desire to effect the same object by changing the clock, I am not greatly resisting that, though I am sorry to see this extension. The hon. Member for Feltham talked about the reduction in accidents and saving of life that might result from this extra hour of daylight, as he called it. I would point out that if the people go home in daylight they will be going to work in the dark, and so what one gains at one end of the day one loses at the other. The hon. Member said that he was very sorry that this arrangement would stop in October and that it should go right on in order to reduce road accidents. Of course, this is the very latest time we could take under this Order without incurring an exactly corresponding disadvantage in the morning.
It has always been strange to me that we in this country should adopt this peculiar practice considering the meridian from which we take our time. It


is not only the prime meridian—but it also happens to run through the eastern portion of the country, so that nearly the whole of the country has a lot of daylight saving even if we have Greenwich Mean Time.
I see that the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly) is present. He seems rather engrossed, but he has the Adjournment debate, which is no doubt why he is here. But his constituency enjoys about 20 minutes' daylight saving throughout the year without any of these statutory provisions.

Mr. Donnelly: We make good use of it.

Mr. Bell: In some cases. Hon. Members who represent constituencies on the West of Scotland have even more daylight saving and, of course, Northern Ireland has about half an hour. Twice a year, when the equation of time is working in that direction, it is three quarters of an hour, quite apart from statutory intervention. By this device, we are giving parts of the kingdom one and three quarter hours' distortion from the clock time.
There may be an argument now from precedent in favour of this and nothing is more powerful or irresistible in this country than an argument from precedent. But, in principle, I dislike this, and I think that someone like my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) should restate the simple principle that this is, after all, only monkeying about with a clock, that the method by which we keep time is not a purely private and domestic affair, but is, on the whole, an equable arrangement whereby people should work on the time of their meridian, within reasonable belts on either side of it, and that this kind of thing is confusing and, looked at broadly, rather foolish. I hope that we shall keep it within as narrow limits as we can.
I have described my objections to double Summer Time going throughout the year as being self defeating, because the fraud which we work on ourselves would be exhausted if we did not have this change. If we did not have the change we would be back where we were before. Under the present system of introducing it in spring and taking it off in the autumn, I do not see how we

are to get staggering of working hours and ease transport.
Staggering almost inevitably means some people going to work earlier than the rush—more than those who will go later than the rush. By extending the beginning of daylight saving into March we shall destroy any hope that London Transport may have had of getting some offices in London to start work at 9 a.m. instead of 9.30 a.m., or at 8.30 a.m. instead of 9 a.m.
We shall squeeze the rush into an even tighter and more highly compressed period, mainly in the morning but also, to some extent, in the evening. Whilst I accept this order as inevitable, because it has gone so far, I wish to record my protest even against this extension of Summer Time, and I hope that there will be no question of extending it further next year.

9.5 p.m.

Mr. Vosper: By leave of the House, Mr. Speaker, I will reply to the points raised in this debate. I thank hon. Members who have expressed their views. The right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) asked if I would give further information about the replies received from the bodies consulted.
To give the overall analysis, 26 of the organisations asked for no change to be made; eight asked for an extension in the autumn; 38 for an extension in the spring and the autumn; 74 for mid-European, or Summer Time all the year round; 16 made other replies which could not be classified in any of the other categories; and 16 did not reply. Numerically, therefore, there was a majority for what my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) does not want.
As I have said, we did not favour that majority view, because, on analysis, there seemed to be much substance in the argument put forward by the very large organisations in the second category—those who wanted an extension in the spring and autumn. The bodies covered a wide variety of interests. The Urban District Councils Association asked for an extension in the autumn until after the last Saturday in October, and an earlier start in the spring—the substance of the Order. The Association of Municipal Corporations had a majority favouring the adoption of mid-European time, but the views expressed by the minority


favoured variously an extension in the autumn, an extension in autumn and spring, and no change.
On the other hand, the County Councils Association favoured merely an extension in the autumn until after the last Saturday in October. The Rural District Councils Association asked for mid-European or Summer Time all the year round. The Trades Union Congress made a rather interesting reply. A majority, 21 organisations representing 2,280,000 members, favoured mid-European time; ten organisations, representing 2,160,000 members, favoured no change; 11 organisations, representing 467,000 members, supported an extension in the autumn and spring. The decision behind the Order therefore favours the moderate opinion of the Trades Union Congress. The British Employers Confederation was equally divided between mid-European time and an extension in the spring and autumn. The Association of British Chambers of Commerce, on the other hand, favoured mid-European time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) asked particularly about the farmers. The National Farmers' Union of England and Wales said that it would not oppose a modest extension in the autumn, but said that there was a strong body of opinion in favour of no change. Scottish farmers, who are concerned with the Order, opposed any change whatsoever. The National Union of Agricultural Workers also favoured no change.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barry also asked about the teaching profession. The National Union of Teachers asked for an extension in the autumn and spring, as did the Joint Committee of the Four Secondary Associations. Those were some of the replies which we have received, and I think that the decision to make an extension for three weeks in the spring and autumn of 1961 was therefore the right decision.
My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) complained about the alteration of the clock twice a year. That was a consideration mentioned in many of the replies and one of the things which we had in mind. It also bears upon the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South. One of the reasons why those engaged in

commerce wanted mid-European time was to be rid of the present anomaly between ourselves and mid-European countries. With the exception of Hungary, we are the only European country which makes this change of the clock, and those engaged in international commerce find that uniformity of hours with European countries has considerable advantages.
Our main consideration in reaching this decision—and we had regard to the views of the farmers and the fuel industry and possibly education on the one hand who did not want a large extension and the views of the tourist industry and the recreation industry and, to some extent, those engaged in industry and commerce on the other—was that we wanted a fairly large if not complete extension, and this Order for next year is a compromise decision as an experiment.
I must place on record the continuing interest of the hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Hunter) in this problem. He raised the question of transport and said that a rather larger extension in the spring and autumn would be in the interests of transport and probably of road safety. However, there comes a time when, if the extension is greater than three weeks, the hours of darkness in the morning during Summer Time are greater than they are in the depth of winter. A period of three weeks was chosen to try to prevent that from happening.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barry is an optimist in his views about the summer. Nevertheless, I understood him to support the principle of the Order.
As I have said, this is an Order for one year. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will value the contributions made by the House tonight and by the public in respect of this Order as to what should be done for 1962. Meanwhile, I am grateful for the support for this Order.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, in pursuance of the provisions of Section 2 of the Summer Time Act, 1947, praying that the Summer Time Order, 1960, be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 30th November.

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

Orders of the Day — SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS

Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Borough of Todmorden [copy laid before the House, 7th December], approved.—[Mr. Vosper.]

Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Borough of Wrexham ber], approved.—[Mr. Vosper.]

Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Penistone [copy laid before the House, 7th December], approved.—[Mr. Vosper.]

Orders of the Day — EMPLOYMENT, PEMBROKESHIRE

Motion made, and Question proposed. That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chichester-Clark.]

9.12 p.m.

Mr. Desmond Donnelly: In one sense I apologise for taking up the time of the House for a second time this evening. In another sense I make no apology, because I am concerned about serious problems within my constituency.
I would like to record my appreciation of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Welsh Affairs for coming to the House to answer the debate. I was a little disturbed about him, because I had noticed that he was not present at the unveiling of the Lloyd George Memorial by the Prime Minister in July, nor at the opening of the National Eisteddfod by the Queen, nor at the opening of the Esso Refinery by the Duke of Edinburgh, and I wondered whether he was all right. However, may I now record my pleasure at seeing him, looking so fit and well this evening.
The problem within my constituency is very serious. It stems from the fact that there has been a substantial shift in the balance of employment in West Wales during the last few years. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the harbour at Milford Haven was, by tradition, a naval port. The Royal Naval Dockyard at

Pembroke used to provide one of the principal sources of employment in this part of Wales. In addition, during the war it was used as a convoy marshalling point. In the immediate post-Second World War era there was a rundown, followed by a certain amount of encouragement by the Government of the day, including the attraction of one particularly important and brave shipbuilding firm to Pembroke Dock, which did a good deal to stem the situation at that time.
Then the circumstances began to worsen. Not only was ship repairing more difficult to get; not only was naval ship repairing less significant in terms of shipbuilding economy, but the fishing industry at Milford Haven, which had been the fourth largest fishing port in the British Isles, and certainly the largest port in Wales, began to run into serious difficulties because of aver-fishing in the traditional hake fishing waters to which Milford Haven trawlers went.
At that point new hope was brought to the area by the advent of the supertanker, the announcement by the Prime Minister that Milford Haven was to be one of the major oil ports of Europe, and the fact that the Esso oil refinery was to be built on the northern shores of Milford Haven. In addition to that came the announcement of the British Petroleum oil landing stage on the southern shores of the Haven and the piping of the oil to Llandarcy, 60 miles away. This, at last, meant that Milford Haven would be an economic port, as opposed to one that was kept by the Government. This was a very important development for West Wales.
In the immediate period of construction there was a great shortage of manpower, and unemployment fell. Practically the only people unemployed in the area were those who were unemployable, and a large amount of labour had to be imported. But whenever this sort of thing happens, as soon as the construction work is completed the rundown starts and difficulties arise. Further, now that the run-down has almost been completed, and the graph of jobs available in the area is at the lowest point, there is a serious social problem south of the Milford Haven, in the Pembroke Dock area. This was the area in which the Royal Dockyard used to be situated,


and which, when the Royal Dockyard was closed suddenly, indeed, almost overnight, suffered a blow comparable only to that suffered by Jarrow in the 1930s.
The situation today is very grave from our point of view—and here I speak as a constituent of myself. I am one of the hon. Members of the House who have great pleasure in voting for themselves and living in their own constituencies. Before the construction work began there were 239 unemployed in Haverfordwest, 389 unemployed in Milford Haven and 269 unemployed at Pembroke Dock. That was in January, 1957. This year, when construction work was at its peak, the unemployment figures were 111 for Haverfordwest, 184 for Milford Haven and 84 for Pembroke Dock. Since June there has been a change for the worse. From 111 at Haverfordwest it has now risen to 221; from 184 at Milford Haven it has risen to 686, and from 84 at Pembroke Dock it has risen to 345—and these figures are rising every day.
Considering the matter in terms of percentages, which the statisticians love so much, in Haverfordwest the unemployment rate in June was 1 per cent.; in Milford Haven, it was 2 per cent., and in Pembroke Dock, it was 2·4 per cent. Those figures are now 3·7 per cent., 11·6 per cent., and 7·8 per cent. respectively, compared with 2·4 per cent. for Swansea and 2·0 per cent. for Cardiff. This gives one some idea of the problem in a small area where jobs are not all that easy to find, and the position will be much worse as the winter goes on. It is for that reason that I ask the Minister to tell us what Her Majesty's Government propose to do about it.
The last thing I would wish to say is that we are ungrateful, or that we wish to be ungracious to Her Majesty's Government for some of their efforts. First, there is the Esso oil refinery, with £18½ million of capital investment. I should like to place on record—because this is an American company and there is a great deal of anti-Americanism in the air in these days of superficial neutralism—that it was a great American, who was also a great friend of this country, who coined the phrase, "a good neighbour." In our port we could not have found better and more socially responsible

neighbours than this company, which has built a great oil refinery on the northern shores of Milford Haven.
It is not without significance also to note that, quite apart from how Milford Haven finds them, in the list of donations to St. Catherine's College—the great new technological college at Oxford, on which so much depends—Esso heads the list with £82,000. This is a wholly owned American company. So sometimes, when we speak of Fords and about China—as I have been doing earlier today—or anything else, it is worth also remembering that the Americans have, more than any other nation in the world, accepted the philosophy, "I am my brother's keeper".
We are not ungrateful for what the Government have done to steer that oil industry to this part of Wales. We are not ungrateful for the announcement by the President of the Board of Trade that an advance factory—I think that that is the technical term—is to be built at Pembroke Dock. I appreciate that it is only a small factory, but I also regard this as a significant venture by the Government and I hope that small ventures may have large consequences.
In addition, there has been the announcement in the House only in the last few days, by the Civil Lord to the Admiralty, that the Royal Naval Air Station at Brawdy is to be placed on a permanent basis and to be extended, with all its consequential effects on civilian employment in the area. But this still leaves us with the problem of our unemployment, which is now mounting. In fact, it is the highest, in the town of Milford, at any time since 1939, and this presents a very real problem for us.
What are we to do about it? That is what I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman. First, there is the question of the Milford tidal barrage. It would be completely out of order for me to suggest new legislation in an Adjournment debate, and I am not suggesting that at all. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman what would be the attitude of his Ministry to the administrative venture of building such a barrage, especially bearing in mind the possibility that we should like some indication of the Government's attitude to such a


barrage in the event of it being proved economic.
I am not suggesting for one moment that we should build an uneconomical barrage; we do not want a great white elephant in Milford Haven. But we want some opportunity of being able to provide adequate water supplies and the incentive that goes with the adequate supply of fresh water to any industries that come there. I have particularly in mind the decision of the Government to assist the Swansea Corporation in building a great reservoir with funds through the Distribution of Industry Acts. What I am really asking the right hon. Gentleman is not for money, but for an expression of noises about the barrage—how does he feel about it?
Secondly, I wish to ask about the fishing industry. The problem of that industry regarding Milford can be summed up in a nutshell—before the war there were 100 trawlers and now there are 26. As I have said on previous occasions, this port, as a fishing port, is "hanging on by its eyebrows". If there are any fewer trawlers the services will become totally uneconomic and they ace uneconomic enough as it is. If the port closes, it would be a major disaster.
There are various schemes before the White Fish Authority for new trawlers for the area. I am advised that the Authority has not given answers on any of these schemes. I should have thought that a decision would be taken as a matter of urgency if this port is to be saved. I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman the large number of people involved and the fact that were this port closed the town of Milford Haven would face very serious hardship indeed.
Then there is the venture of the steel companies involved in the iron-ore storage depot at Angle. As the right hon. Gentleman will recollect, his Ministry held a public inquiry about this storage depot for iron ore on the southern shore of Milford to which iron ore was to be brought in big ships from Labrador and other places and taken in smaller coastal ships round the shores of this country to the various steel plants.
The right hon. Gentleman will recollect that a public inquiry was held by his

Department to consider this matter and that it was proved conclusively that this was the only place in the whole of the British Isles where it could be situated. Yet the next we heard was that the scheme was held up by the steel companies, who were contemplating a great new £60 million project at Port Talbot, and that the majority of the £60 million was to be found by the British Transport Commission.
I do not wish to go beyond the terms of reference of this debate, but I should have thought that in these days of requirements of capital investment by the railways there might be other ways of utilising their money than in building an artificial harbour at Port Talbot. This is a very useful, valuable deep-water site, one of the few deep-water sites which can be developed easily. If the proposal is to be shelved and a new scheme to be produced for Port Talbot, what steps can the right hon. Gentleman take to ensure that this site is not sterilised but is made available for new development?
There is the question of other industries. There is the ship-repairing industry at the moment in the Haven. It is a very small industry which, like the fishing industry, is "hanging on by its eyebrows". For some time it has survived by courtesy of the Admiralty and Government Departments. However, with the changes in the defence programme, new problems have arisen. We all recognise that the Admiralty has not the work to place there.
The difficulty which the ship repairers in Milford Haven face stems from the fact that the increased volume of traffic coming from the development of the Haven has not yet reached the point which would make it economic, but the rundown by the Admiralty has reached a point which is rock bottom. What steps can the Government take to see that these industries are not allowed to collapse, but are retained in being so that when the build-up takes place there will be ship-repairing firms and there with a nuclei of skilled personnel able to share in the growing economic development of the area?
The problem is marginal for the Government, but it is vital for us. Although the Admiralty has not got the boats, there are various other Government Departments which act as shipowners or ship agents of one kind or


another. There is not only the Ministry of Transport, but the Post Office, which has cable layers of different kinds. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to use the good offices of his Ministry for Welsh Affairs, if he can, to see what can be done to inform other Government Departments which own ships of one kind or another that they might be able to do something about retaining this ship-repairing industry in being. As I say, it is marginal for them, but it is vital for us. This is a very important social-political step which they should consider in our interests. It is particularly applicable to the town of Pembroke Dock.
There is the new trading estate at Milford. Although the land has been acquired by an intending developer, so far as I know nothing has transpired in the way of assistance from the Board of Trade. How can the right hon. Gentleman electrify the Board of Trade? That is the question. We want electricity in those great corridors in Whitehall to get the Board of Trade on the move in these matters.
There are the possibilities of tourism. I regard Pembrokeshire as the Cornwall of the pre-war era. It is becoming much more a place where top people go, or should go, for their holidays. It is very important for us to try to attract capital into the area through the tourist industry. Any industrial developments taking place are confined within the Haven.
The right hon. Gentleman's Department has given very valuable and important assistance to Pembrokeshire County Council and we record our appreciation for that. They have done a great deal to assist in the development of the National Park and its presentation. The next logical step is to attract capital into the area for the tourist industry to help to develop it. If the right hon. Gentleman will give us some help and guidance in these matters, I shall be very grateful.
We in West Wales face a very chilly winter. A long-range weather forecaster, writing in one of our national newspapers, said that as a suffix to this wet period we should have the coldest period that people could remember—so cold that we should be talking about it to our grandchildren. I fervently hope

that he is wrong about the weather, but in economics we face a chilly winter, despite all the great developments which have taken place. We may even face two chilly winters.
Does the right hon. Gentleman understand this problem? What does he intend to do about it? What hope can he give for me to take back to my constituents in Pembrokeshire to warm their hearts at this very difficult and doubtful period at the turning of the year, when Christmas is upon us? We should like some hopeful news in order that they may be able to look into 1961 with genuine hope for the future. In the past it has been, "Never jam today, but always jam tomorrow". We understand that, but today my constituency is also concerned with bread and butter.

9.32 p.m.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Mr. Henry Brooke): The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly) knows that I visited and loved the constituency which he represents for many years before I became Minister for Welsh Affairs, and in the four years I have been Minister I have had the pleasure of enlarging my acquaintance with it. I hope that I shall be able to show him that I have a knowledge of the whole of his county, that I am acquainted with its problems and that the Government are doing everything possible to help to solve them.
The last time that I was in the county was in August, when I spent a very interesting day in the company of members of the county council and others. I am sorry that the hon. Member criticises me for not having attended every important function in Wales. One of the reasons for the appointment of a Minister of State for Welsh Affairs was that one or other Minister might always be there, and that is one of the duties which my noble Friend most faithfully carries out.
In the Government's view, Pembroke Dock and Milford Haven offer the most difficult employment problem in the whole of the Principality. Two or three years ago it was Swansea, Llanelly, and the hinterland, consequent on the closing down of the old tinplate works. Now, thanks to what the Government have achieved in attracting industries there,


Swansea and Llanelly are prosperous and, if anything, shortage of skilled labour is emerging.
Following that, the unemployment problem in Gwynedd seemed the most intractable. Now, thanks to the taking up of the advance factory at Holyhead and the coming of the atomic power station to Anglesey and the Ferodo factory to Caernarvonshire, we are well on our way towards solving the employment needs of Anglesey and Caernarvonshire.
I can assure the hon. Member that we are attacking the problems of Pembrokeshire, which are now emerging owing to the run-down of the construction work, with the same vigour and the same intention to succeed. As he acknowledged, we have given tangible evidence by the decision to build an advance factory at Pembroke Dock. The situation there is that investigations are in progress to find what will be the most suitable site for that factory. In addition, the Government have given, and will continue to give, every encouragement to industrialists to consider Pembrokeshire as a site for a new factory. It is true, as he and I both know, that relatively few have so far shown themselves willing to come so far West.
There is the distance factor, and the price that Pembroke has to pay for being another and, as some of us would say, a better Cornwall is that it is at a long distance from both London and the industrial Midlands. It was largely because of this distance factor that the Government took the decision to site the new advance factory in the Pembroke Dock area. We greatly hope that there will be increasing numbers of industrialists willing to consider the county now that so much of South Wales east of Pembrokeshire is becoming fully employed and there is relatively less attraction now in Carmarthenshire and Glamorgan because unemployment there is going down.
I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman mentioned this further point in his speech when paying tribute, as I pay tribute, to the initiative of the Esso Company in coming to the north bank of the Haven. It would, to say the least, be surprising if the refinery with its byproducts, coupled with the wonderful deep water facilities there are, did not in due course attract other chemical

manufacturers. I hope that it will. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government will give all the help they can, although I expect that he as well as I can foresee certain planning problems arising, including, perhaps, problems regarding the discharge of waste material into the Haven.

Mr. Donnelly: There was a point I did not mention which occurred to me while the Minister was speaking of the distance factor. I do not ask him for an answer now, but I should be grateful if he will bear this in mind. I refer to the quality of communications, particularly roads. There is, for instance, the trunking of the road from Whitland to Pembroke Dock. An industrialist sees where the trunk road ends. He runs his finger round that point on the map and he says, "I do not want to go there." Perhaps the Minister and his Department will take note of the point, because it will be very important.

Mr. Brooke: I will gladly give an answer now. The answer is that the first priority for helping Pembrokeshire must be to improve and modernise the big roads. Otherwise, one would simply be moving bottlenecks from one place to another. The Government are pressing forward vigorously. The Ross Spur has just been opened. The Heads of the Valleys Road is going forward, and the. Severn Bridge is definitely planned. As regards making the road he mentioned a trunk road, he will know that the policy of the Ministry of Transport is not to consider trunking stretches of road one by one but to review the problem periodically over the country as a whole. I can definitely say that Pembrokeshire's claim for that has not been forgotten and it will be taken into account when the next review takes place.

Mr. Roderick Bowen: Will not the Minister agree that that review has been overdue for a considerable time?

Mr. Brooke: I do not agree that it is long overdue. If the hon. and learned Member wishes to pursue that, perhaps he will pursue it with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport. I am addressing myself principally to the problems of Pembrokeshire rather than the whole road system of Wales.
I come now to the Angle iron ore project. The hon. Member for Pembroke will realise, of course, that, if this project did go forward, the amount of employment, after the construction period had ended, would be very small. It is common knowledge that the company, after seeking Parliamentary powers for the plan at Angle Bay, has since been investigating the possibility of major works at Port Talbot to bring large iron ore carriers in there direct. I know of no authority for the figure of £60 million which the hon. Member mentioned.
I realise that this figure was given in the papers at one time, but, so far as I know, it had no basis in fact behind it. In any case, I hope he will agree that no decision could possibly be taken about abandoning Angle now until it has been decided by all concerned whether the Port Talbot plan is to go forward. That is the time when, I think, interest in the future of Angle Bay and that part of the coast will emerge once again. The present situation is that no decision whatever has been taken.
Now I must come to this question of water. The hon. Member was gentle in his references to the barrage today, but he will be aware that not so very long ago, somebody in Pembrokeshire suggested that an important paper mill project was lost to the county because it could not be sure of a sufficient supply of suitable water. That was quite untrue, and the Board of Trade pointed out the following day in the Press that there was no foundation for the statement at all. It was, in fact, the distance which led the firm to look elsewhere. I cannot emphasise too strongly that no new industry has been or is likely to be lost to the County of Pembroke for lack of water supplies.
I must say, as the hon. Member spoke quite frankly to me in his speech, that he himself, in my view, made some misleading references in The Times of 24th October to the Milford Haven (Tidal Barrage) Bill of last year, suggesting that I first encouraged the idea of a tidal barrage and then reported against it. In fact, I never encouraged it. The Bill would have imposed an extremely heavy burden on the ratepayers of the county, unless the water demand in the county rose by 10 million to 15 million gallons

per day. When that Bill was before Parliament, the only immediate demand was for 2½ million gallons per day by the Esso Refinery, which expected a demand for a further 2½ million gallons, making 5 million gallons per day between 1967 and 1970, and that included the possible demands of associated industries.
The position is that anything up to 10 million or even 15 million gallons per day of water can be provided by other means more cheaply than by the barrage. Further, there should be no difficulty in meeting all foreseeable demands for water by new industries without the heavy expenses of the barrage for a long time to come.
The hon. Member asked me what would be the Government's attitude towards the barrage in the event of its being proved economic. I do not think I can do better than show my consistency by quoting a report which I made to the Committee on the Milford Haven (Tidal Barrage) Bill in July, 1959. In that report, I said that I did not feel that there was yet sufficient evidence to show that the barrage scheme was the right one, though I accepted that it might prove to be so in time. I felt that the Bill ought to be rejected, but on the understanding that it might well be brought forward again if and when an additional demand of 10 million to 15 million gallons a day seems reasonably assured.
That, frankly, is the position, and it still appears to me that, though I am aware of the attractiveness of having a means of communication across the Cleddau there, nevertheless, it would be an unjustifiable gamble to invest that very large sum of money in the barrage plan, unless it is quite clear that it would be justified by the demand for water.
The hon. Member also referred to the proposed private industrial estate at Milford Haven. I am not quite sure what he was expecting the Board of Trade to do. I understand that the position is that the company that wishes to develop the estate would only build factories to a customer's order, and that means that an application for an industrial development certificate would be made as necessary. Until there is an application for a certificate, I frankly do not see what further action the Government could take in the matter.


The hon. Member himself no doubt knows the planning aspect.
The hon. Member asked about ship-repairing. When putting ship repair work cut to tender, the Admiralty always bears in mind both the local employment conditions and the state of the Ship-repairing industry as a whole. Certainly from time to time there will be further naval work offered to firms in The South Wales area, including the Milford Haven area, but equally certainly the Admiralty cannot give assurance of work to any one firm. It must be done on a tender basis.
What I have done is to make certain that the Admiralty and the other Departments concerned appreciate the position which the hon. Member has correctly described in Milford Haven and Pembroke Dock—that there may be a difficult period to last out before the more considerable work of servicing the oil tankers and the growing activity in the Haven comes to fruition in a few years' time. A major effort between the managements and the unions concerned to bring down costs in the ship-repairing yards around the Haven would be one of the best ways of all to ensure that more repair work goes to Pembrokeshire.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the fishing industry. I am not sure whether he knows—I suspect that he does—that a series of exploratory voyages have been financed by the Government, the White Fish Authority and the British Trawlers' Federation, and they have been undertaken to fishing grounds in the Atlantic beyond Ireland to look for more fish. A full report of the results of these voyages is being prepared, and it will be made available to the industry with the hope that the findings will lead to increased landings of fish at Milford.
During 1959 the owners of vessels at the port became much more interested than they hitherto appeared to be in the assistance available from the White Fish Authority towards the cost of converting the old coal-fired vessels to oil or diesel propulsion. At the end of 1959 more than half the grants approved far this type of modernisation were in respect of vessels operating from Milford Haven. In addition, some fairly modern vessels were transferred from other ports and

some new ones were approved for construction under the Authority's grant and loans scheme. Further applications for assistance towards the building of new vessels have been approved during 1960.
A new owning company has recently been formed which, I understand, is negotiating with the White Fish Authority for the construction of several now vessels for the hake fleet. The hon. Member suggested that the Authority is slow to give approval. My information is that the first inquiry by this company was made to the Authority as recently as September and the formal application for assistance, with the full details required, was made only last month. It is a proposal involving a very considerable sum of money. It certainly indicates confidence in the future of the Haven fishing industry, but because of its magnitude I am sure the hon. Gentleman agrees that it must be carefully considered. Meanwhile, although the fleet is much smaller than it used to be, it is also much more modern, and the prospects for Milford Haven as a fishing port seem brighter than they have been for years.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about the tourist trade. The principal initiative here must, I am sure, come from the local people themselves. There is direct responsibility on all those who, commercially and otherwise, are seeking to meet the needs of visitors. There is a considerable responsibility on the Park Planning Committee and all the local authorities to help to make sure that holiday visitors to Pembrokeshire will want to come again.
I understand that there are plans to form a Pembrokeshire tourist association. I have no doubt that one of the things that it will wish to make sure is that hotel accommodation in the county advances in both quantity and quality to meet the needs of the increasing numbers Who seem to me likely to be coming to Pembrokeshire as the years go on. The important point for the hon. Member and for me is that the Tourist Panel of the Council for Wales is preparing a report on the tourist industry throughout Wales. The Government are looking forward to receiving that report and will study it carefully.
One point which the hon. Member did not mention but Which is of importance in the economy of the county is horticulture. I am told that early potatoes are now estimated to bring into the county something like £1 million a year. There are between 50 and 60 commercial bulb producers and flower growers in the county. It is slightly disappointing to me that only two applications have so far been received from Pembrokeshire for Government grants under the Horticulture Improvement Scheme, both of which, I can tell the hon. Member, have been approved. Possibly, my words tonight will encourage others to apply.
The hon. Member mentioned Brawdy. It is an important decision by my noble Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty to keep the Royal Naval Air Station at Brawdy, which I know well, in commission indefinitely. It was announced in answer to a Question by the hon. Member last week. Both he and I have had anxiety when its future after 1962 was not certain.
Not only will Brawdy be kept in commission, but a good deal of reconstruction work will be done there. The perimeter track and the main runway will be strengthened and may need to be extended. Additions will be made to the technical buildings and living accommodation. The station will remain open during the reconstruction period and the money which the Admiralty proposes to spend on the reconstruction will bring further employment to the county.
I have endeavoured to answer all the points raised by the hon. Member about

the county, and I have mentioned one or two other factors which seem to me relevant to its future. I assure the hon. Member, as, I trust, my words have done, that the Government are fully familiar with all the aspects of the considerable problems that face the county in this sad and difficult period while employment on reconstruction work is tapering off to almost nothing and the new works which we hope to attract there have not yet come. I believe that with the magnificent deep water harbour, the future is good. I certainly assure the hon. Member that the Government, helped, I am confident, by all the local people as well, will do everything in their power to mitigate the unemployment that may exist during the interim period.

Mr. James McInnes: The right hon. Gentleman made the statement that the allocation of Admiralty ship-repairing contracts was determined by the tender price. Do I understand that that is the only factor which is taken into consideration? Let us assume, for example, that there are two tenderers quite close to one another but one of them is located in an area of high unemployment. Is such a factor not taken into account in determining the awarding of the Admiralty contract?

Mr. Brooke: I said that in my speech. If the hon. Member needs further clarification, no doubt he will put his question to my hon. Friend the Civil Lord. I sought to make clear, however, that in offering ship-repair work for tender, the Admiralty took into account both the employment situation in the area concerned and the state of the ship repairing industry nationally.

Orders of the Day — SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY, SCOTLAND

9.55 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Bence: I have notified the Minister of Transport that I wish to raise tonight the problem facing the shipbuilding industry in Scotland. I wish to begin by expressing, on, I am sure, behalf of all those engaged in the shipbuilding industry there, their considerable indignation at the leak which was made from the D.S.I.R. Report and which appeared in The Times some weeks ago.

Mr. Speaker: I wonder whether the hon. Member can help me about this. Was he able to give reasonable notice to the Minister of the points which he desired to raise?

Mr. Bence: Yes, I gave notice to the Minister, at Mayfair 9494, between an hour and three quarters and two hours ago, that I would raise the problem facing the shipbuilding industry in Scotland. I gave that notice on the telephone and I was informed that the Minister would be contacted and would be here.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay): I wonder whether I can help? It is quite true, as the hon. Member has said, that he was able to get in touch with the Ministry of Transport, saying that he would raise the issue of the shipbuilding industry in Scotland, but I have not been informed that he intended to raise the issue of the D.S.I.R. Report. On that, I have no information for him tonight.

Mr. Bence: Had I been able to continue the hon. Gentleman would have appreciated that I was not going to discuss that leak. I thought it my duty, however, to express what, I am sure, is the opinion of everyone in Scotland, and not only of those connected with the shipbuilding industry, that a great disservice has been done to the shipbuilding industry in Scotland by that report. For instance, in my own constituency—

Mr. Speaker: The trouble about this, as the hon. Member knows, for he has been here a long time, is that unless notice is given to the Minister of the points which it is desired to raise, all that

happens is that there is some sort of ex parte expression of view on one side only, which does not assist the public or the House. That is the kind of difficulty which arises unless notice of the points to be raised is given.

Mr. Bence: A lot of money has been spent on development at Scottish ports during the last few years. John Brown's, I think, have two tankers which they are building, but there is only one passenger vessel on the whole of the Clyde, one passenger liner in the whole of the shipyards. John Brown's have spent £8 million on modernising its shipyard, and I think several other companies. James Lithgow, for instance, have spent between £2 million and £4 million. There has been a tremendous spate of modernising on the Clyde in the last three or four years, but the situation is such that only one passenger liner is at present being built on the Clyde. There are, I think, 19 tankers and four ore carriers on the eastern side of Scotland.
But there are no new orders at all: none whatever. Naturally, with this huge investment which has been made in the last few years, encouraged undoubtedly by the Government, with John Brown's spending £8 million—the company has converted two berths into one, so that it now has one of the most modern shipyards in Europe—our shipyards are in a position to take on extra work, provided that it is forthcoming, but for next year, 1961, I understand the order book, so far as we can see at present, shows that only one-sixth of the 1960 output will be put out. That means a tremendous drop in employment on the Clyde.
There are between 24,000 and 25,000 people employed directly in the shipbuilding industry, besides many thousands who get employment incidentally through the activities of the shipyards, so that the shipbuilding industry on the Clyde is absolutely vital to Glasgow and places like Clydebank, Dumbarton, Greenock, Part Glasgow. Those towns are absolutely dependent upon the shipbuilding industry. It is vital to that area; absolutely vital; so that that prospect for 1961 does create in Glasgow and its environs, and along the banks of the Clyde, serious fears about what the situation may be towards the end of 1961.

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chichester-Clark.]

Mr. Bence: I thought for a moment that I was in trouble again.
A few weeks ago I asked the Minister of Transport about the difficulties of the British shipbuilding industry resulting from various practices carried out by the Governments of other maritime nations, such as Japan, Germany, France, the United States, Holland, but not Norway. They are all pursuing practices which we call subsidising. The Governments of these countries are definitely financing shipbuilding on the most favourable terms whereas the British industry has to compete and struggle without any of this assistance. The Minister replied that all he would do would be to wait and hope that these Governments would change their practices.
Does anyone believe that the Governments of the United States, Germany. France, Holland, Sweden, or Italy will drop their present financing techniques in the shipbuilding industry? If the Minister is hoping for that, he hopes in vain. They will not drop these practices. We have to face the fact that competition both in merchant shipping and in shipbuilding is now not so much between individual units as between nation and nation. Britain, and particularly Scotland, cannot afford to allow itself to be subject to waiting and hoping that what these other countries are doing will be done here.
It is not for me to advocate subsidies and I cannot advocate legislation in an Adjournment debate, but when we in the shipbuilding industry on the Clyde are running into serious difficulties it makes us think that what could be done for the cotton industry in Lancashire when it was running into difficulties could be done, or something like it, for the shipbuilding industry in Scotland. We do not need help to protect us against price competition. The Clyde can build ships as economically and efficiently as any shipyard in the world, but it cannot do it if companies abroad receive credit and favourable financing in the world's markets.
British shipbuilders, and particularly John Brown's, can build any ship up to 100,000 tons as efficiently as any yard in the world, but it cannot compete with companies which are financed by privileged conditions back by Governments. We hope that Her Majesty's Government will take some action to see that the shipbuilding industry here shall have encouragement and help, possibly by the direction of orders or the raising of standards to eliminate older ships so as to get a replacement programme going for the mercantile marine.

10.4 p.m.

Mr. William Small: I am indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) for drawing the Minister's attention to conditions in the shipbuilding industry on the Clyde. Representing, as I do, the neighbouring constituency of Scotstoun I am equally involved in the problems affecting shipbuilding. In the day-to-day contact that I maintain with the industry I am being informed all the time of the issue of redundancy notices.
The Blythswood Shipbuilding Company has paid off 150 men. The "Hamilton Sleigh" is the last ship launched by the Blythswood yard, which means redundancy for its labour force of 850, most of whom have to go at Christmas. I have had correspondence from Yarrow's indicating that a pay-off is pending, and Meechan's and other places in my constituency are involved in these difficulties. It is most distressing when one gets letters from one's constituents, quite apart from the shipbuilding employers. Both sides have a mutual interest. Consequently, I shall take advantage of every opportunity which becomes available to draw these matters to the attention of the Minister.
I have in my hand a copy of a British shipbuilding report containing the statement that the Minister of Transport said that the country must be grateful for the huge sums which have been earned by shipbuilders and shipping in the past. The Minister went on to say that all the help that the Government can properly give will be given. But I note that Sir Nicholas Cayzer, in reply, indicates the position in Great Britain as a whale, and I am sure that the Clyde must be affected in proportion. He says


that at the end of the last century Great Britain owned half the world tonnage. Even fifty years ago we owned 40 per cent. Now the figure has fallen to some 17 per cent. When is this decline to stop? When shall we stop this drift?
There is something in particular that I fear. Most of the shipowners and shipbuilders to whom I have talked are at present looking for types of diversification in engineering in competition with other industries. I feel that the time is now ripe for some proposal in respect of nuclear propulsion for shipping in order to provide a diversification of propulsion within shipping itself so that we may maintain a forward-look in shipbuilding. If the industry looks to some other form of engineering for diversification, the decline will still go on and the rot will set in. I feel that unless progress is made in developments of this character there will be little hope of the Clyde keeping in the van of world shipbuilding.

10.8 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel R. G. Grosvenor: I am tempted to intervene in the debate because of the interesting things which hon. Gentlemen opposite from the Clyde have said about shipbuilding. The Clyde is not the only part of the British Isles where ships are made. I speak on behalf of the Province of Ulster, and particularly the City of Belfast, for there we can make ships as good as if not better than those built on the Clyde.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite and I know that there are not enough orders for ships to be built. Therefore, the new "Queen"—so far tonight no reference has been made to it specifically—must be open to perfectly good, honest tenders. In a previous intervention it was suggested that the number of unemployed in or near the yard where the ship might be built should be taken into consideration. I want to stress this aspect because the Minister of Transport went to Belfast the other day and said that the tenders would be straight tenders and that the unemployment implication would not be considered. Consequently, the intervention made earlier was a slightly unhappy one; the tenders will be straight ones, and decided on their merits. Though I confess that I am not knowledgeable

about shipbuilding, I think that that is the best possible way to deal with tendering.
The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire East (Mr. Bence) has spoken about unfair competition all over the world through shipping lines being subsidised. What he has said is perfectly true. However, the Government are meeting that competition with a subsidy for the new "Queen" which is to be built.

Mr. Bence: It is a loan.

Lieut.-Colonel Grosvenor: It is a loan to the extent that it is a subsidy which is repayable. That is a point of view which I would ask the hon. Member to think about.

Mr. E. G. Willis: That is a new definition of subsidy.

Lieut.-Colonel Grosvenor: We will agree to differ on that. However, we are now entering the shipping markets of the world with a new outlook in that help is at least being given to the shipping companies to build their great ships.
I hope that we shall consider shipping throughout the British Isles and not only in Scotland, of which we have heard a good deal tonight, and that various other parts of the country, in particular that part which is so important to this House and to all of us—the Province of Northern Ireland—will not entirely be left out of the picture.

10.10 p.m.

Mr. E. G. Willis: I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) has raised this very important matter. We owe him a debt of gratitude for allowing us even this short time in which to express our views.
The situation of the shipbuilding industry on the Clyde and in the rest of Scotland is of supreme importance to the Scottish economy, because one out of ten of the insured workers in Scotland depend for their livelihood on it, either directly or indirectly. Even in Edinburgh there is a very large engineering firm engaged in building auxiliaries for ships and stabilising equipment.
What happens to the shipbuilding industry in Scotland affects employment throughout the whole of the country.


Scotland is not in a position in which it can afford to allow this industry to decline much further, particularly bearing in mind the large sums that have been spent on re-equipment.
A tremendous blame rests upon the Government, because this situation has been foreseen for a long time. We are told how very few ships—not one on the East Coast—are on the order books for next year. The picture is deplorable, but this was known three years ago. I remember attending, with some of my hon. Friends, a meeting in Glasgow two or three years ago. One prominent person in the industry forecast that not only would the situation be serious in 1959, but that it would be worse in 1960 and far worse still—almost catastrophic—in 1961. That situation exists today.
What have the Government done? We have to face this situation. It is a challenge to the Government which they have not met. If they fail to meet it next year then the position throughout Scotland will worsen considerably. We of all parts of Great Britain cannot allow that to happen. I have made these two points: the importance of this industry to Scotland and the fact that considerable blame rests on the Government. We want to know what the Government intend to do about it.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. James McInnes: I should like to associate myself with the views expressed by my hon. Friends. I am certain that I do not have to impress upon the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport how vital an industry shipbuilding is to Britain. At one time Britain produced 80 per cent. of the world's shipping output, yet in 1955 that proportion had dropped to 20 per cent.
Shipbuilding is vital to the Clyde because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Scotstoun (Mr. Small) said, it employs about 10,000 people, who are, naturally, somewhat concerned about the industry and who want to know what the Government's intentions are. Are the Government still waiting for reports from various committees investigating the efficiency of the industry? When are such reports likely to be made? Do

the Government agree that this is not merely a matter of competition and that there are other elements? For example, I am satisfied that there are too many old men in the industry, and it was men mostly over 60 years of age who were appointed by the industry to inquire into its future.
There is undoubtedly strong feeling about the wastefulness in British shipbuilding. It does not seem to have an appropriate organisation. We are lagging behind and we have to go to the Continent for new ideas and new techniques in this industry. Perhaps there is some justification for the often repeated assertion that disputes within the industry are due almost entirely to the failure of the management.
I will say no more, but will leave the Parliamentary Secretary time to deal with the issues which my hon. Friends have raised.

10.16 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay): We have had a brisk and stimulating debate on the problems of shipbuilding on Clydeside, stimulating particularly to me because of the unexpectedness of the debate. I do not complain about that. One gets to expect anything from Scottish Members, and, being of Scottish ancestry myself, I am not at all surprised when things happen in the way they do.
There is one thing on which we all agree, and that is the vital nature of shipbuilding to Scotland, a matter which has been mentioned by several hon. Members. I agree that the health and prosperity of this industry are vital, not only to Scotland but to the whole of the United Kingdom, and anything that affects shipbuilding in Scotland is bound to have its repercussions on the economy of Scotland and on that of the rest of the United Kingdom. I can best help hon. Members by giving what answers I can and have been able to obtain in the time available, but first I want to make one or two observations.
I think that it is generally accepted and recognised that the problems which are now facing British shipbuilding are not of our own making. The plain fact is that shipping throughout the world has suffered for some years now from an excess of tonnage. Going back, one can


recognise that at the time of the Korean War a great amount of tonnage was built in anticipation of trouble, and much of that tonnage is still with us.
Therefore, somehow the shipbuilding industry has to compete in a world which is already over-stocked with ships. That is something which is affecting not only our own but other countries, and it is something which cannot be put right overnight. Hon. Members have asked what the Government are doing about this and why the Government have not acted before. I think that on reflection, against the background of a world situation of that kind, affecting the users of the ships which are built by shipbuilding industries throughout the world, hon. Members will agree that it is extremely difficult for the Government to come forward with some simple or quick panacea to deal with all the problems and all the difficulties. However, I hope to give a few indications of some of the practical things which we are doing to try to help.
Personally, I do not think that the prospects of the shipbuilding industry on the Clyde are very bright. I must say that frankly. But on the other hand, I do not think that they are particularly black. The situation is serious, but it is not grave. I base this upon the information that I have been able to obtain in the course of the last couple of hours.
The position of orders is a good guide to the probabilities of the future. In the early part of this year we were taking an extremely serious view of the situation, because there was no doubt that the order books were shortening and the whole situation looked grave indeed. Now I am told that the orders seem to be holding up rather better than was feared at the beginning of the year. I do not want to sound a note of false optimism, but at the same time I do not think that one needs to descend to an abyss of pessimism about it. The general situation on the Clyde is serious, but has not yet reached a point of great gravity.
Moreover, this is an industry in which the prospects can brighten very rapidly. It is an industry in which perhaps only two or three orders can make a great deal of difference if they are orders for big ships, because this industry is concerned not only with the building of hulls but with the building of propulsion machinery, the equipment of ships,

furnishings, and a thousand other things. All these different trades in the industry can be affected by a few big orders. That is why I think it is important to do what we can to assist the process of diversification which the hon. Member for Glasgow, Scotstoun (Mr. Small) mentioned.

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: Can the hon. Gentleman say something about the shipbuilding yards in my constituency on the East Coast—about which I know he has not been warned—and about the difference between the future of the big shipbuilding yards, to which the big orders go, and the smaller yards? The shipbuilding yards on the East Coast are smaller than those in other areas.

Mr. Hay: I understand that, and I am sorry that in the time available I have not been able to obtain the full information that I would naturally like to answer a debate of this importance. I will look into that point and try to write to the hon. Gentleman about it.
Our general outlook as regards the prospects of shipbuilding, not only on the Clyde but throughout the country, is this. I think that we have to face this problem in an attitude of sober realism. It would be easy for me to stand at the Box and trot out a number of bromides which might be well reported and which would give the impression that we regarded the industry in a fairly rosy light. We do not regard it in that light. This is a serious situation and we are trying to meet the problems of the shipbuilding industry in a serious fashion.
We are ready to help in every way we can, and, with respect, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) was too ready to blame the troubles of the industry upon the Government. There is a limit to what the Government can do. But let me mention three things that we have done to help Clydeside in particular.

Mr. Willis: rose—

Mr. Hay: Time is short and I cannot give way.
We have done three things in recent months to help Clydeside. First, there is the allied industry of ship-repairing, which is not so large a part of the industry on Clydeside as in other shipbuilding


parts of the country. Here, to assist in the development of the ship repairing side of the industry, the House will know of the proposals which we have now accepted for the building of the Greenock dry dock. This is one of the projects which has been proposed for many years. It has long been wanted, and now we are going to have this enormous dock. It is a big one indeed, over 1,000 feet long, and the Government are lending about two-thirds of the total cost of about £4¼ million.

Mr. Willis: The Government have taken a long time to make up their mind about this.

Mr. Hay: The hon. Gentleman says that the Government have taken a long time to make up their minds, but I urge him not to criticise us for being slow but rather to rejoice that this is being done.
Secondly, there is the new treatment which the Export Credit Guarantees Department has produced for certain types of shipbuilding orders. An announcement about this was made in October, and two modifications to the normal system of export credit guarantees have been introduced.
First, if it is necessary to compete in certain foreign markets where similar treatment is given to shipbuilders, an extended period of more than five years credit can be guaranteed by the E.C.G.D. Secondly, the premiums formerly payable have been considerably lowered. This has been the result of direct Government intervention and negotiation with the industry in Scotland. These are two concrete examples.
As for the long-term problems of the industry, I should mention that a subcommittee of my right hon. Friend's Shipbuilding Advisory Committee has been at work very hard for some months on a complete examination of the problems of shipbuilding and ship-repairing. The chairman of the Sub-Committee is the Permanent Secretary of my right hon. Friend's Department—Sir James Dunnett. Since the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) spoke about old men in charge, I would point out that Sir James is only 46 years old, which is pretty young as Permanent Secretaries go. Furthermore, anyone who knows him—and I believe that many hon. Members

know him—knows that he is extremely vigorous and forward-looking in his ideas.
We are looking for some useful advice from this Sub-Committee, but we must discover the facts first, and these the Sub-Committee will provide. On those facts it is my right hon. Friend's responsibility, in conjunction with his colleagues, to pronounce his policy, and if there is any action which we can usefully take as a result I hope that we shall get the support of the House. This examination is not confined to Clydeside, or even to Scotland; it concerns the shipbuilding industry throughout Britain.
I cannot forecast a definite date for the production of the report, but I am told that the Sub-Committee is hoping to report before very long, and I do not think that any hon. Member would grudge it a few more weeks so long as the facts which come from its deliberations are right and clear.
I hope that I have made it plain that the scope for action by the Government to give direct and concrete assistance to this industry is somewhat limited. The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) suggested that we might reconsider our policy of not granting subsidies to our merchant shipping. He mentioned the fact that some foreign countries give subsidies. Nevertheless, this is something that we have set our faces against for many years. We have been fighting a battle—with some success in certain respects—against the policy of subsidisation, and it would be disastrous to all the efforts which we are making in conjunction with our friends on the Continent and in other parts of the world to get rid of this idea of subsidisation of shipping if, now, because our shipbuilding industry is in difficulties for the moment, we surrendered our policy and changed our ideas.
I cannot accept that this is something we can immediately overturn. It is true that methods of subsidisation for shipbuilding could be considered. The hon. Member gave the example of the cotton industry, which was given help by the Government and Parliament. I shall take note of that comment and mention it to my right hon. Friend, but I cannot hold out definite hopes that that course will be adopted. The hon. Member would not expect me to do so.
He also said that we might direct orders to the Clyde. That course would be resisted by hon. Members from other shipbuilding areas.

Dame Irene Ward: Hear, hear.

Mr. Hay: My hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Lieut.-Colonel Grosvenor) would be the first to leap to their feet if there was any question of the Government's directing orders particularly to Clydeside. It may be that the hon. Member put that suggestion forward in a heated moment, without having fully considered the possibilities.
Finally, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Scotstoun raised the question of nuclear

propulsion for ships. The House knows that we sought a number of tenders for different types of propelling machinery for a nuclear ship some months ago. No less than five tenders were received in July. They are complicated and difficult things to understand and will need a good deal of consideration. This consideration is being given to them now, and I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend will make an announcement when the moment arrives.
Broadly, we are not complacent about the problems of the industry and will do everything feasible to help it.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.